Re: deb for netbeans

[Nicos Panayides]

I was wondering now that you mensioned the java2 vm. I've seen on the
"packages being worked on" list that openoffice debs are being prepared.
I am not sure how accurate this list is but openoffice is on. As far as
i know both openoffice and sun's jdk have the same licenses. How come
sun's jdk (or derivatives like ibm and blackdown) are not considered for
non-free? It's not like there is no demand for 1.3+ compliant
vm/libraries. 

On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 19:12, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:09:40AM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
> 
> > I wondered if there is a deb available for Netbeans? Its a great open
> > source IDE, I think. Or is there something wrong with the license?
> 
> Assuming that it requires a Java2 virtual machine, it isn't useful with
> software available in Debian, nor even with software in the non-free
> archive, so the advantages of packaging it are substantially reduced.
> 
> Of course, no one can stop you from creating debs and distributing them, so
> long as the software's license permits it (which it must if it is truly Open
> Source).
> 
> -- 
>  - mdz
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[franck routier]

le ven 03-05-2002 à 04:12, Matt Zimmerman a écrit :
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:09:40AM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
> 
> > I wondered if there is a deb available for Netbeans? Its a great open
> > source IDE, I think. Or is there something wrong with the license?
> 
> Assuming that it requires a Java2 virtual machine, it isn't useful with
> software available in Debian, nor even with software in the non-free
> archive, so the advantages of packaging it are substantially reduced.

!! So long Debian-java.. ???

Did anyone analyse the move Sun made under the Apache Foundation
pressure ? I've read it could lead to truly free JVM, maybe for java 1.5
?

Franck
> 
> Of course, no one can stop you from creating debs and distributing them, so
> long as the software's license permits it (which it must if it is truly Open
> Source).
> 
> -- 
>  - mdz
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[officegirl]

 


　
 

가브리엘향수
파운데이션
총알청바지

\25,000
\39,000
\31,500

허락 없이 메일을 보내드려 죄송합니다.
원치 않으시면 옆의 버튼을 눌러주세요. 




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: deb for netbeans

[Lev B. Olkhovich]

Hello,

> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:09:40AM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
>
> > I wondered if there is a deb available for Netbeans? Its a great open
> > source IDE, I think. Or is there something wrong with the license?
>
> Assuming that it requires a Java2 virtual machine, it isn't useful with
> software available in Debian, nor even with software in the non-free
> archive, so the advantages of packaging it are substantially reduced.
>
Sorry if that's obvious, but what's wrong with Sun jvm (JRE SE 1.4)?
I thought that it is suitable for non-free... (sections 2,3 of JRE SE
license)
There is a problem with 2.i and 2.ii, but looks like packaging it along with
some small useful Java proggie would resolve it...

Yours Sincerely, Lev B. Olkhovich




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote:

> I was wondering now that you mensioned the java2 vm. I've seen on the
> "packages being worked on" list that openoffice debs are being prepared.
> I am not sure how accurate this list is but openoffice is on. As far as
> i know both openoffice and sun's jdk have the same licenses. How come
> sun's jdk (or derivatives like ibm and blackdown) are not considered for
> non-free? It's not like there is no demand for 1.3+ compliant
> vm/libraries. 

OpenOffice is available under the Sun Industry Source License or the LGPL
(dual licensed)[0].  The LGPL is clearly a DFSG-compliant license.  Sun's JDK
is under the Sun Community Source License, which is not[1].

[0] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html

[1] http://Www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[cbbrowne]

On Fri, 03 May 2002 09:45:21 EDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote:
> 
> > I was wondering now that you mensioned the java2 vm. I've seen on the
> > "packages being worked on" list that openoffice debs are being prepared.
> > I am not sure how accurate this list is but openoffice is on. As far as
> > i know both openoffice and sun's jdk have the same licenses. How come
> > sun's jdk (or derivatives like ibm and blackdown) are not considered for
> > non-free? It's not like there is no demand for 1.3+ compliant
> > vm/libraries. 
> 
> OpenOffice is available under the Sun Industry Source License or the LGPL
> (dual licensed)[0].  The LGPL is clearly a DFSG-compliant license.  Sun's JDK
> is under the Sun Community Source License, which is not[1].
> 
> [0] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
> 
> [1] http://Www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html

I thought that the build process of OpenOffice depended on [I'm being
vague here :-(] "some bundle of Java2 stuff," which would have the
result that despite OpenOffice itself being "free software," since a
build requires distinctly nonfree stuff, it can't go in "free."

It's almost enough to make you want to throw up your hands and say, "why
bother trying?"
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html
Rules  of  the  Evil  Overlord  #24.  "I  will  maintain  a  realistic
assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. Even though this takes some
of the fun out  of the job, at least I will  never utter the line "No,
this  cannot be!  I AM  INVINCIBLE!!!" (After  that, death  is usually
instantaneous.)" 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Tom Tromey]

> "Franck" == franck routier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Franck> Did anyone analyse the move Sun made under the Apache
Franck> Foundation pressure ? I've read it could lead to truly free
Franck> JVM, maybe for java 1.5 ?

That's very unlikely.  I think the best you can hope for is that
you'll be free to reimplement the Java spec.  Maybe the JCK will be
available too.

Tom


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:42:48PM +0400, Lev B. Olkhovich wrote:

> Sorry if that's obvious, but what's wrong with Sun jvm (JRE SE 1.4)?
> I thought that it is suitable for non-free... (sections 2,3 of JRE SE
> license)

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Guillaume Rousse]

Ainsi parlait Vendredi 3 Mai 2002 04:12, Matt Zimmerman :
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:09:40AM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > I wondered if there is a deb available for Netbeans? Its a great open
> > source IDE, I think. Or is there something wrong with the license?
>
> Assuming that it requires a Java2 virtual machine, it isn't useful with
> software available in Debian, nor even with software in the non-free
> archive, so the advantages of packaging it are substantially reduced.
>
> Of course, no one can stop you from creating debs and distributing them, so
> long as the software's license permits it (which it must if it is truly
> Open Source).
NetBeans also requires JavaHelp, and some non-free javac extensions only found 
in netbans binary release.

Apart this licensing problems, it is also quite difficult to build and run 
from external libraries. However, developpers were very friendly and 
comprehensive, and i succeded to create a rpm for jpackage project (with 
still minor problem, tough).

I'd be happy helping you if needed for creating a debian package, and also to 
submit a common request to netbeans developpers to make other way of building 
it easier in the future.
-- 
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Nicos Panayides]

Ok then. I wasn't too sure about it anyway. By the way since there are
several different specifications (1.2, 1.3, 1.4) for java2 vm (and their
base libraries), shouldn't there be some way to handle dependencies on
specifications? For instance i have a project that needs 1.4. Right now
i don't see any way to have that dependency. Maybe the
java-virtual-machine virtual package should have a specification field
so we could say something like depends: java-virtual-machine (>= 1.4).
Maybe something similar for the base libraries. Ok there are no
java2-vms available for debian officially but hopefully someday there
will be, and not handling specification dependencies will cause some
headaches to the users.

On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 06:45, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote:
> 
> > I was wondering now that you mensioned the java2 vm. I've seen on the
> > "packages being worked on" list that openoffice debs are being prepared.
> > I am not sure how accurate this list is but openoffice is on. As far as
> > i know both openoffice and sun's jdk have the same licenses. How come
> > sun's jdk (or derivatives like ibm and blackdown) are not considered for
> > non-free? It's not like there is no demand for 1.3+ compliant
> > vm/libraries. 
> 
> OpenOffice is available under the Sun Industry Source License or the LGPL
> (dual licensed)[0].  The LGPL is clearly a DFSG-compliant license.  Sun's JDK
> is under the Sun Community Source License, which is not[1].
> 
> [0] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
> 
> [1] http://Www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html
> 
> -- 
>  - mdz
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:54:01PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote:

> Ok then. I wasn't too sure about it anyway. By the way since there are
> several different specifications (1.2, 1.3, 1.4) for java2 vm (and their
> base libraries), shouldn't there be some way to handle dependencies on
> specifications? For instance i have a project that needs 1.4. Right now i
> don't see any way to have that dependency. Maybe the java-virtual-machine
> virtual package should have a specification field so we could say
> something like depends: java-virtual-machine (>= 1.4).

This would be useful, but dpkg does not have this functionality (versioned
virtual packages) yet.  A versioned dependency on a virtual package will
always fail to be met.

> Maybe something similar for the base libraries. Ok there are no java2-vms
> available for debian officially but hopefully someday there will be, and
> not handling specification dependencies will cause some headaches to the
> users.

I would look at it the other way, where it is not a good use of our time to
fine-tune a specification for something that we do not have (and may never
be able to have).

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[officegirl]

 


¡¡
 

°¡ºê¸®¿¤Çâ¼ö
ÆÄ¿îµ¥À̼Ç
ÃѾËû¹ÙÁö

\25,000
\39,000
\31,500

Çã¶ô ¾øÀÌ ¸ÞÀÏÀ» º¸³»µå·Á Á˼ÛÇÕ´Ï´Ù.
¿øÄ¡ ¾ÊÀ¸½Ã¸é ¿·ÀÇ ¹öÆ°À» ´­·¯ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. 




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: deb for netbeans

[Lev B. Olkhovich]

Hello,

> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:09:40AM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
>
> > I wondered if there is a deb available for Netbeans? Its a great open
> > source IDE, I think. Or is there something wrong with the license?
>
> Assuming that it requires a Java2 virtual machine, it isn't useful with
> software available in Debian, nor even with software in the non-free
> archive, so the advantages of packaging it are substantially reduced.
>
Sorry if that's obvious, but what's wrong with Sun jvm (JRE SE 1.4)?
I thought that it is suitable for non-free... (sections 2,3 of JRE SE
license)
There is a problem with 2.i and 2.ii, but looks like packaging it along with
some small useful Java proggie would resolve it...

Yours Sincerely, Lev B. Olkhovich




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote:

> I was wondering now that you mensioned the java2 vm. I've seen on the
> "packages being worked on" list that openoffice debs are being prepared.
> I am not sure how accurate this list is but openoffice is on. As far as
> i know both openoffice and sun's jdk have the same licenses. How come
> sun's jdk (or derivatives like ibm and blackdown) are not considered for
> non-free? It's not like there is no demand for 1.3+ compliant
> vm/libraries. 

OpenOffice is available under the Sun Industry Source License or the LGPL
(dual licensed)[0].  The LGPL is clearly a DFSG-compliant license.  Sun's JDK
is under the Sun Community Source License, which is not[1].

[0] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html

[1] http://Www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[cbbrowne]

On Fri, 03 May 2002 09:45:21 EDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote:
> 
> > I was wondering now that you mensioned the java2 vm. I've seen on the
> > "packages being worked on" list that openoffice debs are being prepared.
> > I am not sure how accurate this list is but openoffice is on. As far as
> > i know both openoffice and sun's jdk have the same licenses. How come
> > sun's jdk (or derivatives like ibm and blackdown) are not considered for
> > non-free? It's not like there is no demand for 1.3+ compliant
> > vm/libraries. 
> 
> OpenOffice is available under the Sun Industry Source License or the LGPL
> (dual licensed)[0].  The LGPL is clearly a DFSG-compliant license.  Sun's JDK
> is under the Sun Community Source License, which is not[1].
> 
> [0] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
> 
> [1] http://Www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html

I thought that the build process of OpenOffice depended on [I'm being
vague here :-(] "some bundle of Java2 stuff," which would have the
result that despite OpenOffice itself being "free software," since a
build requires distinctly nonfree stuff, it can't go in "free."

It's almost enough to make you want to throw up your hands and say, "why
bother trying?"
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html
Rules  of  the  Evil  Overlord  #24.  "I  will  maintain  a  realistic
assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. Even though this takes some
of the fun out  of the job, at least I will  never utter the line "No,
this  cannot be!  I AM  INVINCIBLE!!!" (After  that, death  is usually
instantaneous.)" 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Tom Tromey]

> "Franck" == franck routier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Franck> Did anyone analyse the move Sun made under the Apache
Franck> Foundation pressure ? I've read it could lead to truly free
Franck> JVM, maybe for java 1.5 ?

That's very unlikely.  I think the best you can hope for is that
you'll be free to reimplement the Java spec.  Maybe the JCK will be
available too.

Tom


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:42:48PM +0400, Lev B. Olkhovich wrote:

> Sorry if that's obvious, but what's wrong with Sun jvm (JRE SE 1.4)?
> I thought that it is suitable for non-free... (sections 2,3 of JRE SE
> license)

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Guillaume Rousse]

Ainsi parlait Vendredi 3 Mai 2002 04:12, Matt Zimmerman :
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:09:40AM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > I wondered if there is a deb available for Netbeans? Its a great open
> > source IDE, I think. Or is there something wrong with the license?
>
> Assuming that it requires a Java2 virtual machine, it isn't useful with
> software available in Debian, nor even with software in the non-free
> archive, so the advantages of packaging it are substantially reduced.
>
> Of course, no one can stop you from creating debs and distributing them, so
> long as the software's license permits it (which it must if it is truly
> Open Source).
NetBeans also requires JavaHelp, and some non-free javac extensions only found 
in netbans binary release.

Apart this licensing problems, it is also quite difficult to build and run 
from external libraries. However, developpers were very friendly and 
comprehensive, and i succeded to create a rpm for jpackage project (with 
still minor problem, tough).

I'd be happy helping you if needed for creating a debian package, and also to 
submit a common request to netbeans developpers to make other way of building 
it easier in the future.
-- 
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Nicos Panayides]

Ok then. I wasn't too sure about it anyway. By the way since there are
several different specifications (1.2, 1.3, 1.4) for java2 vm (and their
base libraries), shouldn't there be some way to handle dependencies on
specifications? For instance i have a project that needs 1.4. Right now
i don't see any way to have that dependency. Maybe the
java-virtual-machine virtual package should have a specification field
so we could say something like depends: java-virtual-machine (>= 1.4).
Maybe something similar for the base libraries. Ok there are no
java2-vms available for debian officially but hopefully someday there
will be, and not handling specification dependencies will cause some
headaches to the users.

On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 06:45, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote:
> 
> > I was wondering now that you mensioned the java2 vm. I've seen on the
> > "packages being worked on" list that openoffice debs are being prepared.
> > I am not sure how accurate this list is but openoffice is on. As far as
> > i know both openoffice and sun's jdk have the same licenses. How come
> > sun's jdk (or derivatives like ibm and blackdown) are not considered for
> > non-free? It's not like there is no demand for 1.3+ compliant
> > vm/libraries. 
> 
> OpenOffice is available under the Sun Industry Source License or the LGPL
> (dual licensed)[0].  The LGPL is clearly a DFSG-compliant license.  Sun's JDK
> is under the Sun Community Source License, which is not[1].
> 
> [0] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
> 
> [1] http://Www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html
> 
> -- 
>  - mdz
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: deb for netbeans

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:54:01PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote:

> Ok then. I wasn't too sure about it anyway. By the way since there are
> several different specifications (1.2, 1.3, 1.4) for java2 vm (and their
> base libraries), shouldn't there be some way to handle dependencies on
> specifications? For instance i have a project that needs 1.4. Right now i
> don't see any way to have that dependency. Maybe the java-virtual-machine
> virtual package should have a specification field so we could say
> something like depends: java-virtual-machine (>= 1.4).

This would be useful, but dpkg does not have this functionality (versioned
virtual packages) yet.  A versioned dependency on a virtual package will
always fail to be met.

> Maybe something similar for the base libraries. Ok there are no java2-vms
> available for debian officially but hopefully someday there will be, and
> not handling specification dependencies will cause some headaches to the
> users.

I would look at it the other way, where it is not a good use of our time to
fine-tune a specification for something that we do not have (and may never
be able to have).

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]