Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

FAQ 5.1.2 potato The kit is named ibm-jdk1.1-installer. The paragraph should be rewritten. It's not alpha anymore, it's not at this location anymore. It's part of potato for now. I would be interested how the license prohibits the installation by an installer The other comments regarding

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:19:29PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:52:02AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > In practice, look for "open source" in Altavista and you'll see what I mean. > > I find more confusion when searching for "free software" than when > s

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:52:02AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > In practice, look for "open source" in Altavista and you'll see what I mean. I find more confusion when searching for "free software" than when searching for "open source". Your point? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

> In theory, yes. It is a trade mark, Raymond registered it, Perens wrote a > precise definition , etc. > > In practice, look for "open source" in Altavista and you'll see what I mean. I doubt that Altavista/YaHoo/... produces anything better when you look for "

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Tuesday 22 February 2000, at 22 h 1, the keyboard of Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that "free software" is to be preferred, but your argument > is strange. "Open source" is a precisely defined concept (and thus > "means nothing" is untrue), In theory, yes. It is

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Use "free", not "open source" which means nothing and is only for the suits. I agree that "free software" is to be preferred, but your argument is strange. "Open source" is a precisely defined concept (and thus "means nothing"

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Monday 21 February 2000, at 18 h 40, the keyboard of Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many of these components have been cloned under an Open Source > license. Use "free", not "open source" which means nothing and is only for the suits.

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Tuesday 22 February 2000, at 13 h 21, the keyboard of "Remco van 't Veer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 6.1. How can I make Java servlets work? > > --- > > You can use: > > > > * GNUJSP > > > > * Apache Jserv > > Not yet packaged fo

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 18:40, Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a wrote: > Feel free to send me any comments/suggestion ... *however* I hope > that when a final 1.0 version of the FAQ is available somebody on the > debian-java mailing lists adopts the FAQ since I will probably not be able > to keep i

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a wrote: > Feel free to send me any comments/suggestion ... *however* I hope > that when a final 1.0 version of the FAQ is available somebody on the > debian-java mailing lists adopts the FAQ since I will probably not be able > to keep it up to date. Raw notes: You

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

Shouldn't we be using the term free-software instead of open-source?

New version of the Debian-java FAQ

I was well aware of some things adressed regarding the draft I sent... however it was just a draft :) I was at the same time downloading the Mailing list archive of the last 5 months. I have been through it and "rescued" information I found worth adding and some of which people hav