Michael Koch wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:49:42PM +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote:
Michael Koch wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:28:10PM +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote:
- Sable has a large and active community
In the last time the project seems to be very inactive except some mails
on the lists.
Not true. They just like to keep it low volume for some reason (which I
admittedly don't like much). Check again.
Anyways, even a community of 2 is better than the JamVM community...
When speaking to them on IRC they always say they have no time for
sablevm currently ...
I would call this inactive.
They just say that. They mean something else. The project is huge and
has momentum.
- Sable is LGPL. GPL does not work for maemo. Read why at
http://sablevm.org/wiki/License_FAQ.
That is only the opinion of the SableVM people. Neither GNU classpath
poeple nor FSF considers this to be correct.
So why do they still think so after such a long time? What would you say?
What's the heuristic then?
I dont know why but there is some dispute between sablevm and the rest
of the classpath community since a longer time. I dont really know why
and I would really like to get this solved. But I guess this will never
happen.
How about Nokia money as a solver? :-)
If you link native to a GPL VM, then that code must also be GPL, no?
That is an absolute requirement in the embedded world...
That is true. But running java bytecode in with a GPL vm and loading JNI
libs during that doenst render all the java/native code you run with the
VM to GPL.
and this context does not apply to CLDC...
Cheers,
Michael
