(followups set to debian-devel; please take this off of debian-java if
replying)
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:57:11PM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> I hope DMFR behaves differently, then, because I will probably miss
> non-free. I have about a page worth of non-free software installed:
>
> - Bl
Per,
I'm guessing this guy is one of those who thinks the only thing that can
be done with Java is a Web application (which, presumably, makes heavy use
of java.security.*). I think we should come up with a name for people like
that. Dot-communists? Dot-com-a-holics? Dot-com-iacs?
;)
Regards,
A
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 19:49]:
> > Sun did not license Java in a non-free manner. They licensed _their
> > implementation_ of Java in a non-free manner. Java itself is not subject
> > to a license of any kind, but just some straight
[Note: This is Cc'd to debian-devel and debian-security because of the
discussion regarding RMS' su diatribe; subscribers to these lists
might find it interesting, scroll down past the Java stuff if you are,
and feel free to ignore this message if you're not. Please don't flame
me. I'm thin-skinne
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just for everybody's information. kaffe is in fact developed under a contract
> to Microsoft, please see
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,20225,00.html
This quite misleading. As far as I know, the Microsoft contract
referred to has only f
* Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 20:32]:
> Also one of the very annoying thing in kaffe bother me much is that it
> has not implemented java.security. It is a mistake or an intention to
> make Java insecure? See
> http://www.kaffe.org/cgi-bin/kaffe/security?user=guest;addsignature=1
I th
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 22:35]:
> That's why you create classes under packages other than `java' or
> `javax'. The Java API proper is in the `java' and `javax' packages, and
> Sun is simply trying to keep Java consistent across implementations by
> using their IP powers to
Hi, I hate to see a great people like you leaving. I haven't been
reading all other followups yet, so please forgive me if there's any
repeated message.
> Therefore, I stop maintaining java-common (I will send an official ITO unless
> someone steps in really fast) and the proposed Java policy.
Th
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 21:31]:
> > > is their implementation of Java Not Free, the API itself is also Not
> > > Free and cannot be reproduced without licensing from Sun.
> >
> > I suggest getting some lawyers on the task, then.
>
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 19:49]:
> Sun did not license Java in a non-free manner. They licensed _their
> implementation_ of Java in a non-free manner. Java itself is not subject
> to a license of any kind, but just some straightforward IP protections to
> keep people (like Mi
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 21:31]:
> > is their implementation of Java Not Free, the API itself is also Not
> > Free and cannot be reproduced without licensing from Sun.
>
> I suggest getting some lawyers on the task, then.
With what money? :)
> Last time I checked, there w
Seth,
Sun did not license Java in a non-free manner. They licensed _their
implementation_ of Java in a non-free manner. Java itself is not subject
to a license of any kind, but just some straightforward IP protections to
keep people (like Micro$oft) from forking Java. Which is bad, for obvious
rea
(followups set to debian-devel; please take this off of debian-java if
replying)
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:57:11PM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> I hope DMFR behaves differently, then, because I will probably miss
> non-free. I have about a page worth of non-free software installed:
>
> - B
Per,
I'm guessing this guy is one of those who thinks the only thing that can
be done with Java is a Web application (which, presumably, makes heavy use
of java.security.*). I think we should come up with a name for people like
that. Dot-communists? Dot-com-a-holics? Dot-com-iacs?
;)
Regards,
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 19:49]:
> > Sun did not license Java in a non-free manner. They licensed _their
> > implementation_ of Java in a non-free manner. Java itself is not subject
> > to a license of any kind, but just some straigh
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just for everybody's information. kaffe is in fact developed under a contract to
>Microsoft, please see http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,20225,00.html
This quite misleading. As far as I know, the Microsoft contract
referred to has only fund
* Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 20:32]:
> Also one of the very annoying thing in kaffe bother me much is that it
> has not implemented java.security. It is a mistake or an intention to
> make Java insecure? See
> http://www.kaffe.org/cgi-bin/kaffe/security?user=guest;addsignature=1
I t
Hi, I hate to see a great people like you leaving. I haven't been
reading all other followups yet, so please forgive me if there's any
repeated message.
> Therefore, I stop maintaining java-common (I will send an official ITO unless
>someone steps in really fast) and the proposed Java policy.
Th
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 19:49]:
> Sun did not license Java in a non-free manner. They licensed _their
> implementation_ of Java in a non-free manner. Java itself is not subject
> to a license of any kind, but just some straightforward IP protections to
> keep people (like M
Seth,
Sun did not license Java in a non-free manner. They licensed _their
implementation_ of Java in a non-free manner. Java itself is not subject
to a license of any kind, but just some straightforward IP protections to
keep people (like Micro$oft) from forking Java. Which is bad, for obvious
re
* Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 10:27]:
> Yeah, but with this solution there is no way to include other free java2
> apzz and libs in distribution.
Artur, the problem is very simple. I hope I can explain it simply enough
for you to understand; while languages are often beautiful, engli
Has anyone worked on packaging the FOP software at
http://xml.apache.org/fop/index.html>
?
One more thing:
sdk and jdk are packaged for debian -> see blackdown :)
( http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/mirrors.html to find your
nearest mirror)
Ciao mattHias
--
__ _ __ *
/\_/\ \ \_/ \_/ / * Matthias Wieser *
/ \ \ /
Bob,
Congratulations, you just learned to h4X0R the Matrix. ;)
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++()>$ UL>$ P--- L++>++$ E+ W+(-) N+ o? K?
w---()
!O !M !
On 1 Mar 2001, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> (http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/mirrors.html).
That is one of those insanely wierd coincidences that makes you question
the nature of realilty.. weird.
--
Bob Ham: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pkl.net/~node/
IRC: 'node' on irc.openprojects.net: #slash
> "Nicolas" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm talking to Sun about a possible amendment to our license which
>> would allow our deb packages to go into Debian (non-free). Currently
>> I'm waiting for feedback from Sun's legal department.
Nicolás> BTW, y
Umm.. dudes..
deb http://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/java/debian potato non-free
(or http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/mirrors.html to find your
nearest mirror)
--
Bob Ham: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pkl.net/~node/
IRC: 'node' on irc.openprojects.net: #slashdot ICQ: 4396425 'node'
"The GNU p
> "Alexander" == Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexander> What's needed is an install package, like for
Alexander> realplayer, that takes apart Sun's rpm and puts
Alexander> together a deb and installs it.
There are debs for our Java packages (J2SE, JMF, Java 3D, J
Evan,
That presents a problem. Java itself is free, but Sun's implementation is
not. For this reason, forcing all packages which depend on
`java-virtual-machine' or whatever is pretty unfair. Packages that depend
specifically on Sun's implementation, however, belong in contrib.
Regards,
Alex.
-
Evan,
There's the free ones (japhar, kaffe, et al), possibly IBM's (but I've had
pretty unpleasant problems with IBM's JDK...maybe it's just
me..). Blackdown _is_ Sun's JVM ported to Linux.
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN
Cris,
I used alien to convert Sun's rpm into a debian package, and
java-{virtual-machine,compiler}-dummy to provide for dependencies and Java
policy compliance. That way, I _can_ (and _do_) use jserv et al from
Debian packages.
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367
What's needed is an install package, like for realplayer, that takes apart
Sun's rpm and puts together a deb and installs it.
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++(++
* Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 10:27]:
> Yeah, but with this solution there is no way to include other free java2
> apzz and libs in distribution.
Artur, the problem is very simple. I hope I can explain it simply enough
for you to understand; while languages are often beautiful, engl
Stephane,
It is not Java that is non-free; it is Sun's implementation that is
non-free. Sun was very thoughtful about this sort of problem, and they
decided to not only allow but encourage clean-room implementations of
their Java platform. This prevents vendor lock-in, and it also allows one
to ch
Has anyone worked on packaging the FOP software at
http://xml.apache.org/fop/index.html>
?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One more thing:
sdk and jdk are packaged for debian -> see blackdown :)
( http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/mirrors.html to find your
nearest mirror)
Ciao mattHias
--
__ _ __ *
/\_/\ \ \_/ \_/ / * Matthias Wieser *
/ \ \ /
Bob,
Congratulations, you just learned to h4X0R the Matrix. ;)
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++()>$ UL>$ P--- L++>++$ E+ W+(-) N+ o? K? w---()
!O !M !
On 1 Mar 2001, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> (http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/mirrors.html).
That is one of those insanely wierd coincidences that makes you question
the nature of realilty.. weird.
--
Bob Ham: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pkl.net/~node/
IRC: 'node' on irc.openprojects.net: #slas
> "Nicolas" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm talking to Sun about a possible amendment to our license which
>> would allow our deb packages to go into Debian (non-free). Currently
>> I'm waiting for feedback from Sun's legal department.
Nicolás> BTW,
Umm.. dudes..
deb http://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/java/debian potato non-free
(or http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/mirrors.html to find your
nearest mirror)
--
Bob Ham: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pkl.net/~node/
IRC: 'node' on irc.openprojects.net: #slashdot ICQ: 4396425 'node'
"The GNU
> "Alexander" == Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexander> What's needed is an install package, like for
Alexander> realplayer, that takes apart Sun's rpm and puts
Alexander> together a deb and installs it.
There are debs for our Java packages (J2SE, JMF, Java 3D,
While IINAL I work for a company that has deployed Java applications running
under debian for several large Free Software Projects (pocketlinux, etc...) as
well as fortune 500 companies. Suns liscensing is basically ignorant and the
liability transfer clause probably isnt even legal. I for one w
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 06:53:02PM +0100, Artur Radosz wrote:
> *2. License to Distribute Software. *Subject to the terms and conditions
> of this Agreement, including, but not limited to Section 3 (Java (TM)
> Technology Restrictions) of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a
> non-exclusiv
Evan Prodromou wrote:
"AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> Just for my own curiosity, are there any Java 2 JVMs that -are-
Me> redistributable? Blackdown? IBM? Or is the jdk-XXX-installer
Me> method like the only way to make this work?
>>
AR> *2. License to Di
Evan Prodromou wrote:
"AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> But it will be good to have this in debian dist. This and
AR> others java lib, applications or systems.
It can't be in Debian, since it's not DFSG-Free.
If it can be legally redistributed with Debian, though, it can
> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> Just for my own curiosity, are there any Java 2 JVMs that -are-
Me> redistributable? Blackdown? IBM? Or is the jdk-XXX-installer
Me> method like the only way to make this work?
>>
AR> *2. License to Distribute Softwar
Evan Prodromou wrote:
"AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> What about JRE? What about other java providers? Ehh, this is
AR> without sense, there was a discussion about this long time
AR> ago.
Just for my own curiosity, are there any Java 2 JVMs that -are-
redistributa
Evan,
That presents a problem. Java itself is free, but Sun's implementation is
not. For this reason, forcing all packages which depend on
`java-virtual-machine' or whatever is pretty unfair. Packages that depend
specifically on Sun's implementation, however, belong in contrib.
Regards,
Alex.
"Cris J. Holdorph" wrote:
>
> I have no trouble running Java on my Debian system. I download the jdk
> from Sun, throw it in /usr/local and run. BTW, I do the same for Apache
> and several other programs too. I appreciate Debian for the overall
> OS and environment, but even if I was using Wind
> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> But it will be good to have this in debian dist. This and
AR> others java lib, applications or systems.
It can't be in Debian, since it's not DFSG-Free.
If it can be legally redistributed with Debian, though, it can go in
non-fre
Evan,
There's the free ones (japhar, kaffe, et al), possibly IBM's (but I've had
pretty unpleasant problems with IBM's JDK...maybe it's just
me..). Blackdown _is_ Sun's JVM ported to Linux.
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN
> I don't think finger pointing, even to Sun, will help at
> this point. We just need to figure out a way to work
> around the problem.
Greetings,
I run java on my Debian box (since I am firm in my resolve to use no
other
Linux Distribution), and I follow the practice of downloading fro
Cris,
I used alien to convert Sun's rpm into a debian package, and
java-{virtual-machine,compiler}-dummy to provide for dependencies and Java
policy compliance. That way, I _can_ (and _do_) use jserv et al from
Debian packages.
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367
> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> What about JRE? What about other java providers? Ehh, this is
AR> without sense, there was a discussion about this long time
AR> ago.
Just for my own curiosity, are there any Java 2 JVMs that -are-
redistributable? Blackdown?
Colin Michael Yates wrote:
Hi,
Maybe I have missed the point (getting ready to be flamed :-)) but what is
the problem of downloading the Sun JDK and running it on Linux? It is very
easy to configure and use, and although slow, it is very reliable?
Yes, it`s true.
Even if you can't distribute Sun's
What's needed is an install package, like for realplayer, that takes apart
Sun's rpm and puts together a deb and installs it.
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++(+
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thursday 1 March 2001, at 16 h 40, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway i hope that after quiting main Java2 blocker
I will learn Peter's lesson, I will not write this is absurd. But it is: the
fact that Java2 is non-free (and not even red
Stephane,
It is not Java that is non-free; it is Sun's implementation that is
non-free. Sun was very thoughtful about this sort of problem, and they
decided to not only allow but encourage clean-room implementations of
their Java platform. This prevents vendor lock-in, and it also allows one
to c
I have no trouble running Java on my Debian system. I download the jdk
from Sun, throw it in /usr/local and run. BTW, I do the same for Apache
and several other programs too. I appreciate Debian for the overall
OS and environment, but even if I was using Windows, RedHat, or even
Solaris! I woul
Hi,
Maybe I have missed the point (getting ready to be flamed :-)) but what is
the problem of downloading the Sun JDK and running it on Linux? It is very
easy to configure and use, and although slow, it is very reliable?
Even if you can't distribute Sun's JDK with Debian, you can still *use* the
Java on Linux is important. Debian is important Linux.
As hard as it may be to wade through the free/non-free
waters and sort out a viable directory structure,
java policy, etc., the long term benefits are
significant.
What I appreciate is wiring java and the inumerable
libraries/jars into Linux
> While IINAL I work for a company that has deployed Java applications running under
>debian for several large Free Software Projects (pocketlinux, etc...) as well as
>fortune 500 companies. Suns liscensing is basically ignorant and the liability
>transfer clause probably isnt even legal. I for
It is a consequence of Sun's licensing and Debian policy.
I don't think finger pointing, even to Sun, will help at
this point. We just need to figure out a way to work
around the problem.
Personally, I wish Sun goes to H***! They also manage to
wound other good ideas severely, like JINI with t
How many people are in this list? How many want to use Java
on a Debian system?
We can certainly pool our resources together to get a good
Java infrastructure going.
It is kind of stupid on my part, but I have resorted to run
Java on my Win2k laptop.
Bao
> -Original Message-
> Fro
On Thursday 1 March 2001, at 16 h 40, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Anyway i hope that after quiting main Java2 blocker
I will learn Peter's lesson, I will not write this is absurd. But it is: the
fact that Java2 is non-free (and not even redistributable) is not my
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 06:53:02PM +0100, Artur Radosz wrote:
> *2. License to Distribute Software. *Subject to the terms and conditions
> of this Agreement, including, but not limited to Section 3 (Java (TM)
> Technology Restrictions) of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a
> non-exclusi
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Me> Just for my own curiosity, are there any Java 2 JVMs that -are-
> Me> redistributable? Blackdown? IBM? Or is the jdk-XXX-installer
> Me> method like the only way to make this work?
> >>
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> AR> But it will be good to have this in debian dist. This and
> AR> others java lib, applications or systems.
>
> It can't be in Debian, since it's not DFSG-Free.
>
> If it can be legally redistrib
> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> Just for my own curiosity, are there any Java 2 JVMs that -are-
Me> redistributable? Blackdown? IBM? Or is the jdk-XXX-installer
Me> method like the only way to make this work?
>>
AR> *2. License to Distribute Softwa
Peter Moulder wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 12:27:41PM +0100, Artur Radosz wrote:
One good news in this day (really bad day for me)!
Maybe now something with java-debain will change.
Go away.
What do you think you achieve by sending this message?
Stephan has already announced his intentions, so I
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> AR> What about JRE? What about other java providers? Ehh, this is
> AR> without sense, there was a discussion about this long time
> AR> ago.
>
> Just for my own curiosity, are there any Java 2
"Cris J. Holdorph" wrote:
>
> I have no trouble running Java on my Debian system. I download the jdk
> from Sun, throw it in /usr/local and run. BTW, I do the same for Apache
> and several other programs too. I appreciate Debian for the overall
> OS and environment, but even if I was using Win
> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> But it will be good to have this in debian dist. This and
AR> others java lib, applications or systems.
It can't be in Debian, since it's not DFSG-Free.
If it can be legally redistributed with Debian, though, it can go in
non-fr
> I don't think finger pointing, even to Sun, will help at
> this point. We just need to figure out a way to work
> around the problem.
Greetings,
I run java on my Debian box (since I am firm in my resolve to use no other
Linux Distribution), and I follow the practice of downloading fro
> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> What about JRE? What about other java providers? Ehh, this is
AR> without sense, there was a discussion about this long time
AR> ago.
Just for my own curiosity, are there any Java 2 JVMs that -are-
redistributable? Blackdown
Colin Michael Yates wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe I have missed the point (getting ready to be flamed :-)) but what is
> the problem of downloading the Sun JDK and running it on Linux? It is very
> easy to configure and use, and although slow, it is very reliable?
Yes, it`s true.
>
> Even if you ca
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thursday 1 March 2001, at 16 h 40, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Anyway i hope that after quiting main Java2 blocker
>
>
> I will learn Peter's lesson, I will not write this is absurd. But it is: the
> fact that Java2 is non-fr
I have no trouble running Java on my Debian system. I download the jdk
from Sun, throw it in /usr/local and run. BTW, I do the same for Apache
and several other programs too. I appreciate Debian for the overall
OS and environment, but even if I was using Windows, RedHat, or even
Solaris! I wou
Hi,
Maybe I have missed the point (getting ready to be flamed :-)) but what is
the problem of downloading the Sun JDK and running it on Linux? It is very
easy to configure and use, and although slow, it is very reliable?
Even if you can't distribute Sun's JDK with Debian, you can still *use* th
Java on Linux is important. Debian is important Linux.
As hard as it may be to wade through the free/non-free
waters and sort out a viable directory structure,
java policy, etc., the long term benefits are
significant.
What I appreciate is wiring java and the inumerable
libraries/jars into Linu
It is a consequence of Sun's licensing and Debian policy.
I don't think finger pointing, even to Sun, will help at
this point. We just need to figure out a way to work
around the problem.
Personally, I wish Sun goes to H***! They also manage to
wound other good ideas severely, like JINI with
How many people are in this list? How many want to use Java
on a Debian system?
We can certainly pool our resources together to get a good
Java infrastructure going.
It is kind of stupid on my part, but I have resorted to run
Java on my Win2k laptop.
Bao
> -Original Message-
> Fr
On Thursday 1 March 2001, at 16 h 40, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Anyway i hope that after quiting main Java2 blocker
I will learn Peter's lesson, I will not write this is absurd. But it is: the
fact that Java2 is non-free (and not even redistributable) is not my
Peter Moulder wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 12:27:41PM +0100, Artur Radosz wrote:
>
>> One good news in this day (really bad day for me)!
>> Maybe now something with java-debain will change.
>> Go away.
>
>
> What do you think you achieve by sending this message?
>
> Stephan has already an
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
[If you want me to read your messages, copy them to me: I've unsubscribed.]
I'm changing, I'm leaving for a new employer and, in my new office, I will no longer use Java (which is a good thing for me, see hereunder).
Ufff
One good news in this day (really bad day for m
[If you want me to read your messages, copy them to me: I've unsubscribed.]
I'm changing, I'm leaving for a new employer and, in my new office, I will no
longer use Java (which is a good thing for me, see hereunder).
Therefore, I stop maintaining java-common (I will send an official ITO unless
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> [If you want me to read your messages, copy them to me: I've unsubscribed.]
>
> I'm changing, I'm leaving for a new employer and, in my new office, I will no longer
>use Java (which is a good thing for me, see hereunder).
> Ufff
One good news in this day (really
[If you want me to read your messages, copy them to me: I've unsubscribed.]
I'm changing, I'm leaving for a new employer and, in my new office, I will no longer
use Java (which is a good thing for me, see hereunder).
Therefore, I stop maintaining java-common (I will send an official ITO unles
88 matches
Mail list logo
