-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Philipp,
(please, respect the mail-followup-to field ;-) even if doogie and
dalibor don't, they are some kind of rebel! ;-)
Philipp Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Arnaud Vandyck schrieb:
>> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>These
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Adam Heath wrote:
> components/content/lib/velocity-dep-1.3.jar
This is part of a subproject of velocity, velocity-tools.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If the things continue at this pace, we may consider doing kaffe-cvs
>> releases more regularly for interested people to play with.
>
> I for one would love that.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Badran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2004 16:04, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>> > components/service/lib/jaxrpc.jar
>>
>> I think I already see this somewhere ;-)... (but where?)
>
> Isnt this a library from j2ee?
Done!
http://java
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I packaged an old version of jboss (3.0.2 or something)[1] and had
> intentions of doing 3.1+. I found it quite a bit of work to do the
> packaging alone and deal with all the dependencies embedded within th
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the things continue at this pace, we may consider doing kaffe-cvs
> releases more regularly for interested people to play with.
I for one would love that.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> >
> >> Would be cool to have JBoss in Debian ;-)
> >
> > Don't you mean ofbiz(altho, jboss would be nice too, but jboss
> > upstream isn't friendly).
>
> >From the
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>
>> Would be cool to have JBoss in Debian ;-)
>
> Don't you mean ofbiz(altho, jboss would be nice too, but jboss
> upstream isn't friendly).
>From the website, it seems jboss is used by ofbiz! ;-)...
But I don't
elijah wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Would be cool to have JBoss in Debian ;-)
>>
>> As soon as Kaffe runs JBoss (even rudimentally) I will package JBoss
>> for Debian, unless somebody else beats me to it (I don't see a need
>> to package it before that as the installation to /usr/local
Hallo Arnaud,
* Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>Would be cool to have JBoss in Debian ;-)
NTW: JPackage has packaged JBoss, so why not have a look there :) Its
kind of fun, as well, as it is interesting, what kind of features
other packages have. So far I've found 4 different eclipse packages:
JPackage, g
I've reduced the list, to those that implement java extensions.
jdbc2_0-stdext and jta appear to be in kaffe in some form or another.
> components/minerva/lib/jdbc2_0-stdext.jar
javax.sql.*
> components/minerva/lib/jta_1.0.1.jar
javax.transaction.*
> components/minerva/lib/ots-jts_1.0.jar
o
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> I don't know about the rest from the top of my head. I'm checking in
> some RMI improvements now, and then we'll give JBoss a beating. The
> developement in the last few days has been quite intensive wrt to
> getting XScale, PowerPC-no-fpu, and MIPS to r
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
These are the jars I need to have packaged still.
Slightly smaller list, as I found some replacements in debian already.
Re-ordered:
1° Maybe already in Debian:
components/content/lib/iText.jar
libitext-java - Java Library to gener
On 10 Mar 2004, Joe Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 11:39, elijah wright wrote:
> >
> > i'm pretty sure someone already built jboss packages - i seem to have an
> > apt-get source for them already, at least
>
> I packaged an old version of jboss (3.0.2 or something)[1] and had
> intent
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 11:39, elijah wright wrote:
>
> i'm pretty sure someone already built jboss packages - i seem to have an
> apt-get source for them already, at least
I packaged an old version of jboss (3.0.2 or something)[1] and had
intentions of doing 3.1+. I found it quite a bit of wo
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, elijah wright wrote:
>
> i'm pretty sure someone already built jboss packages - i seem to have an
> apt-get source for them already, at least
>
> elijah
That was me, but was based on 2.4. 3.0 changed completely around, and I never
got around to it.
Plus, we have stopped
i'm pretty sure someone already built jboss packages - i seem to have an
apt-get source for them already, at least
elijah
> > Would be cool to have JBoss in Debian ;-)
>
> As soon as Kaffe runs JBoss (even rudimentally) I will package JBoss for
> Debian, unless somebody else beats me to it
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > These are the jars I need to have packaged still.
> > Slightly smaller list, as I found some replacements in debian already.
>
> Re-ordered:
>
> 1° Maybe already in Debian:
>
> > components/content/lib/iText.
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2004 16:04, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > components/service/lib/jaxrpc.jar
>
> I think I already see this somewhere ;-)... (but where?)
Isnt this a library from j2ee?
Tom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO
Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would be cool to have JBoss in Debian ;-)
As soon as Kaffe runs JBoss (even rudimentally) I will package JBoss
for Debian, unless somebody else beats me to it (I don't see a need to
package it before that as the installation to /usr/local or /var/jboss
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> These are the jars I need to have packaged still.
> Slightly smaller list, as I found some replacements in debian already.
Re-ordered:
1° Maybe already in Debian:
> components/content/lib/iText.jar
libitext-java - Java Library to generate PDF on the Fly
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>
> > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > So, I sent a mail recently to this list, saying I got ofbiz(www.ofbiz.org) to
> > > run on kaffe. This is great news for kaffe.
> > >
> > > However, I just real
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So, I sent a mail recently to this list, saying I got ofbiz(www.ofbiz.org) to
> > run on kaffe. This is great news for kaffe.
> >
> > However, I just realized something very poor. Kaffe is in main. Since
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, I sent a mail recently to this list, saying I got ofbiz(www.ofbiz.org) to
> run on kaffe. This is great news for kaffe.
>
> However, I just realized something very poor. Kaffe is in main. Since
> ofbiz(a
So, I sent a mail recently to this list, saying I got ofbiz(www.ofbiz.org) to
run on kaffe. This is great news for kaffe.
However, I just realized something very poor. Kaffe is in main. Since
ofbiz(and all the external jars in it's cvs checkout) run on kaffe, it should
be able to go into main a
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
I can live with this view (even though an argument could be made about
the fact that many VMs (I do not know specifically about Kaffe) internally
use bytecodes from the class library to handle internal data structures
[think of a just-in-time compiler written in J
[This is no longer particularly important]
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:37:49AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >Kaffe is essentially a filter that takes java
> >bytecode as input and emits program code on the fly (this is
> >technically incomplete, but effectively equivalent
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Kaffe is essentially a filter that takes java
bytecode as input and emits program code on the fly (this is
technically incomplete, but effectively equivalent for the sake of
this argument). The input to a filter cannot be a derivative work of
it; we don't *care* about the sta
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:40:59AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> The opinion of debian-legal would be highly appreciated by all involved in
> this
> long running thread of discussion about the implications of:
>
> 1- Kaffe being licensed under the GNU GPL.
> 2- Kaffe's class library being licens
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
It would have been nice if you had made the arguments of each side
clear, before attacking my position. The discussion has not taken
place on debian-legal, but on debian-java. I appreciate the way Gadek
presented both sides of the previuos argument.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
It would have been nice if you had made the arguments of each side
clear, before attacking my position. The discussion has not taken place
on debian-legal, but on debian-java. I appreciate the way Gadek
presented both sides of the previuos argument.
You have a good point, th
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 07:51:37PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> My first issue is with the subject line: Kaffe uses plain GPL, not some
> special 'Kaffe's GPL'. It should be FSF's GPL, if you'd want to
> attribute it someone special.
I read "Kaffe's (GPL and GPL incompatible Java software)", no
Hi Etienne,
let's have some non-lawyerish philosophical licensing discussion fun
again ;)
My first issue is with the subject line: Kaffe uses plain GPL, not some
special 'Kaffe's GPL'. It should be FSF's GPL, if you'd want to
attribute it someone special.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Hi Debian-legal
Hi Debian-legal, Egon and Dalibor,
The opinion of debian-legal would be highly appreciated by all involved in this
long running thread of discussion about the implications of:
1- Kaffe being licensed under the GNU GPL.
2- Kaffe's class library being licensed under the GNU GPL.
3- Differeing interp
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
On Saturday 01 November 2003 20:08, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
The big question seems to come done to:
"What part of Java is library and what part is language?"
It seems to me that at least the syntax *and* java.lang *is* the
language...
On Saturday 01 November 2003 20:08, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
> > The big question seems to come done to:
> >
> > "What part of Java is library and what part is language?"
> >
> > It seems to me that at least the syntax *and* java.lang *is* the
> > language... Thus as l
Salut Etienne,
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
GPL says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. ...
...
As running is clearly not covered under GPL, your argument doesn't work.
Modification *IS* cove
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
The big question seems to come done to:
"What part of Java is library and what part is language?"
It seems to me that at least the syntax *and* java.lang *is* the language...
Thus as long as you don't use anything else then java.lang classes, you can
use kaffe to r
On Saturday 01 November 2003 18:41, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > GPL says:
> > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. ...
>
> > As running is clearly not covered under GPL, your argument doesn
Dalibor Topic wrote:
GPL says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. ...
...
As running is clearly not covered under GPL, your argument doesn't work.
Modification *IS* covered by the GPL. (FYI, it's not my argumen
Hi Etienne,
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Hi Arnaud,
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Anyway, we're switching kaffe's class library over to GNU Classpath,
which is GPL + linking exception, and that should make the people who
support FSFs interpretation happy, too, as GNU Classpath explicitely
allows linking to
Hi Arnaud,
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Anyway, we're switching kaffe's class library over to GNU Classpath,
which is GPL + linking exception, and that should make the people who
support FSFs interpretation happy, too, as GNU Classpath explicitely
allows linking to it.
This won't necessarily change an
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:32:08 +0100
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, we're switching kaffe's class library over to GNU Classpath,
> which is GPL + linking exception, and that should make the people who
> support FSFs interpretation happy, too, as GNU Classpath explicitely
> all
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:51:23AM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>
> PS: I hope d-l people won't mind us Cc:ing them from now on. We surely
> don't want to make it another IANAL-discussion which brigns nothing
> so we need some help. Please Cc:d-l when it makes sense.
>
Last I checked, the
W liście z czw, 30-10-2003, godz. 05:32, Dalibor Topic pisze:
> Anyway, we're switching kaffe's class library over to GNU Classpath,
> which is GPL + linking exception, and that should make the people who
> support FSFs interpretation happy, too, as GNU Classpath explicitely
> allows linking to
Hi!
Below is the mail that I sent yesterday to debian-java NOT putting Cc:
to d-legal as I thought the issue was really clear to me. After some
duscussion that began after my email (see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2003/debian-java-200310/msg00107.html
) it was requested to bring it on to d
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>Anyway: if thats true, that it will kill kaffe in debian, as we could
>>not use it with almost any programm, because in one way or another,
>>they all include apache licensed libs (-> jakarta project).
>Don't agree. ;) Even if this was true, it would be good
Hi,
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 11:32, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Jan Schulz wrote:
> > * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >
> >>* figure out how you want to interpret the GPL in this case. The rest
> >>follows from that.
> >>
> >>>Problems not touched: *execution* of GPL-incompatible code using
> >>> GPLed libs an
Jan Schulz wrote:
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
* figure out how you want to interpret the GPL in this case. The rest
follows from that.
Problems not touched: *execution* of GPL-incompatible code using
GPLed libs and/or GPLed JVMs is beyond the scope of this message.
Could you please
Dalibor Topic wrote:
B) me (and I guess a few others who are not lawyers, either):
As GPL only really talks about derived works, in order to decide if the
GPL applies to a work we must try to see if the new work is derived from
a GPLd work, or not.
FWIW, this is also my POV after reading some of
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>* figure out how you want to interpret the GPL in this case. The rest
>follows from that.
>>Problems not touched: *execution* of GPL-incompatible code using
>> GPLed libs and/or GPLed JVMs is beyond the scope of this message.
Could you please take this two
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Hi all!
Hi Grzegorz,
Summary: Usage of GPLed libs to compile GPL-incompatible code makes
the result *undistributable*. [0]
Affected java packages: Every package that contains GPL-incompatible
software which was *compiled* using GPLed libs.
Examples: current Ant p
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Summary: Usage of GPLed libs to compile GPL-incompatible code makes
> the result *undistributable*. [0]
Does it? AFAIK using gcc (GPL licensed) to compile _any_ software does
not make that software GPL. So, why would kaffe be a special case?
Hi all!
Summary: Usage of GPLed libs to compile GPL-incompatible code makes
the result *undistributable*. [0]
Affected java packages: Every package that contains GPL-incompatible
software which was *compiled* using GPLed libs.
Examples: current Ant package apparently(!) has been compiled w/
54 matches
Mail list logo
