Grzegorz B. Prokopski debian.org> writes:
> FWIK soon after SableVM 1.1.8
> release GNU Classpath got fully merged a version of jaxp that is capable
> of running Eclipse (the above instructions do not use jaxp). We should
> have the new, fixed version of jaxp included in 1.1.9.
Great! Thanks fo
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:08:19 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
> > than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
> > side-by
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 290204 minor
Bug#290204: Improper copyright file
Severity set to `minor'.
> severity 290203 minor
Bug#290203: Improper copyright file
Severity set to `minor'.
> severity 290202 minor
Bug#290202: Improper copyright file
Severity set to `minor'
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
> than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
> side-by-side with the work it critiques.
Sure, and evidence isn't proof.
If it can be sh
Package: java-common
Version: 0.22
Severity: normal
The copyright file of this package seems to use the *license*, instead
of the copyright holder in the style of "Copyright (C) 2005 by Justin
Pryzby".
Please see this thread:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/03/msg02190.html
-- Syste
On Wed, 2005-12-01 at 17:16 -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> Mine works on Sun's and Kaffes but does not work on Sable. Since the
> compiled class files work on Sun's (for me), I suspect that the compile
> created class files that are up to snuff, and JNI bindings that were
> standards compliant. Sable
Mine works on Sun's and Kaffes but does not work on Sable. Since the
compiled class files work on Sun's (for me), I suspect that the compile
created class files that are up to snuff, and JNI bindings that were
standards compliant. SableVM throws a bunch of NPE's however. I suspect
it's just a probl
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:36:27 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip things with which I agree completely]
> Once again: linking is a detail. It's not something which copyright
> law makes any special allowances for. Depending on the circumstances
> linking might be analogous to types
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> > which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:58PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Wha
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:11:52 +0100, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
> > licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
>
> [cut noise about FSF]
One person's signal is another's
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
What laws and precedents? All the law and precedent that I can find
sug
Hi,
Because some people feel unsure about how a JVM, its classpath and java
compiler interact together, below I tried to strip the situation down
to a simple and clean non-java case.
Assume we have the following packages, providing a shared library:
Package: propr-line
License: non-free, free to
Am Mittwoch, 12. Januar 2005 22:11 schrieb Dalibor Topic:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under
> > other licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
>
> [cut noise about FSF]
>
> > But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret th
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
[cut noise about FSF]
But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret the relationship between
Java bytecode and GPL code to be loose enough not to cr
[Note: I don't know enough about Eclipse and Kaffe to make any comments
on that specific issue. Instead, I'm responding to some of the things
Michael has written.]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> You know, just because the FSF has claimed for many years that
Thomas Fogwill csir.co.za> writes:
> This build runs fine (so far) with kaffe, but does not run at all with
> any other VMs: (tried: Sun's 1.4.2 JDK, SableVM, gij).
>
> As this is the case, would it not make sense to add the following to
> the /usr/bin/eclipse script?
> -VM /usr/lib/kaffe/bi
Grzegorz B. Prokopski debian.org> writes:
> Neither they agreed with yours, as you probably remember, but that's not
> the point. The point is, that, as you've mentioned yourself, there ARE
> non-GPLed JVMs (IKVM, gij, SableVM) that could be used to build Eclipse
> w/o breaching GPL.
The point is
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:46:32 -0500, Ben Konrath wrote:
>
> I looked into this briefly when the message was posted and confirmed that
> this was the case, but I haven't made any progress. If you have them
> building that would be really great.
boot.jar contains only a text file (readme.txt), I a
Hi,
(CCed debian-legal, so they know where we are, what we are working on
and where we might need some help in the future)
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 01:10 -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-01 at 02:49 +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> However if nobody stands up and say clearly, t
Jikes bug. There are tons of them. Jikes seems incapable of resolving
class names in odd situations. You only broke on org.eclipse.runtime...
you have quite a few more plug-ins to go. ;)
After I get the packages done, I plan to go through it on each VM, and
file bugs for every little problem. You
first off, excellent work! You seem to have put in some major effort!
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 00:04 -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> These are compiled for my desktop installation of Ubuntu warty/hoary.
> The source packages should be re-compilable on unstable. PLEASE
> RECOMPILE!
I did (with kaffe),
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:04:27 -0600,
Jerry Haltom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Following up on my earlier notification of Eclipse 3.0 packages.
>
> They now successfully compile Eclipse and **RUN** Eclipse using a Free
> JVM (Kaffe). This means, excludi
22 matches
Mail list logo
