On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 04:38:53PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 September 1999, at 23 h 11, the keyboard of Julio
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> > implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have jav
bernd kreimeier wrote:
> On his own code minus all past contributions. Big F*** Deal.
>
> What's your point? Linus can't take the past contributions
> with him (Copyright Alan Cox, Donald Becker, ...). He
> can't take back what he has released before. Your point
> is essentially that he can stop
> > Linus can place all his
> > personally written code under a different license at any time,
> > he can't do that for code written by others. One effect
> > of the GPL/LGPL license is that contributions from others
> > infect your work, taking away your freedom to change the
> > licensing for the
Tim Wilkinson wrote:
The real issue here is not Java so much as the perception of
> the SCSL and right now I don't know how you effectively change that - I
> boycott it but how do you presuade the 250,000 people who downloaded Star
> Office to do the same.
Seth R Arnold wrote:
>
> Well, if Ean's interpretation is correct, a different VM will STILL fall
> under the SCSL license, if they used the Java 2.x specs to produce it.
-
Why take a chance on anyone's interpretation, especially attorneys or
the courts?
bernd kreimeier wrote:
> Java the language (sans all the added classes) might well be
> implemented using a different VM. The school does not care
> whether it is a JVM using 8bit bytecode, or some entirely
> different VM using expanding opcodes or 16bit bytecode or...
>
> Java the language can al
Seth R Arnold wrote:
> Java is being taught in many schools, mine included, as the default
> language. Our profs do not mind if we use other languages, but all example
> code, all example everything, the default IDE in the labs, EVERYTHING, is
> java. That makes for a few years of CS students that
Okay, well we have taken a look at the legal side of this argument
(unsuprisingly) and here's what we know:
1. JDK 1.0 - very liberal license, pretty much allowed you to do what you
wanted.
2. JDK 1.1 - clean-room license, allows you to use the spec for a
clean-room implementation so long as you
I agree completely -- I think in a few months I might be tempted to give the
HURD a shot myself -- but to think it could supplant java? Of that I am not
sure.
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 04:30:57PM -0700, Jim Franklin wrote:
> Hi Seth,
> I think HURD has potential from the fact that it is an operati
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 12:06:25AM +0100, bernd kreimeier wrote:
> > Java is being taught in many schools, mine included, as the default
> >
> > Some very nice points, but I doubt the hurd will be able to serve as the
> > magic bullet.
> >
> > comments?
>
>
> Java the language (sans all the add
10 matches
Mail list logo
