On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:31:17AM -0700, Richard A. Hecker wrote: > > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:48:12 +0100 (BST) > > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: Please produce a bundled installer > > From: "Dave Hooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ...<snip>... > > > > In case you're wondering why we're talking about this at all: a while ago, > > we didn't mirror the Sun JRE download at freenetproject.org; now we do > > that, but apparently the reason there isn't a debian distro of freenet is > > because *mirroring Sun's JRE installer is in violation of Sun's licence*. > > Or at least this is the impression I received from the previous > > discussion. > > > > So we're now discussing whether we should remove the Sun JRE download from > > freenetproject.org; or whether or not this really is a violation of Sun's > > licence. > > > > Anyone: Is that *really* the reason there isn't a debian distro of > > freenet? I thought it was rather because Sun JRE was 'non free' in that > > it wasn't GPL or Berkeley licenced? > > > There is a Debian package of Freenet. It is currently build 629 and I > will be the new maintainer since Robert Bihlmeyer has been MIA for a > while. I have no previous JAVA experience and that is slowing me down > but there are other issues that weigh more. A typical Debian user will > expect another Debian package to supply the JRE. Relying on the Sun JRE > for newer features hurts the Debian package. The stability of a package > is a serious concern. I try to keep the big picture in mind and take a > long term view. The typical demands on my time are easier to justify > when I amortize them over a few years.
Heh. We cannot make a non-sun-dependant Freenet. You cannot make a package of Sun Java, maybe not even an installer package. We apparently care more about the windows leechers who probably won't donate to the project than the people who actually care about Freenet who probably run Linux or BSD, for security reasons as much as anything else. We therefore cannot contribute project time to making Freenet work on GCJ. I suggest you go put your head in a bucket of sand. It will go away eventually! > > I enjoyed the response from Mark listed below. It seems worth repeating. > > > From: Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: 15 Jul 2003 13:42:18 +0200 > > > > Hi, > > > ...<snip>... > > > > For more (and specifically for a list of free software implementations > > of java-like environments see the Debian java FAQ: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch5.html > > > > > > Gcj is a solution to produce executable files...but not for some freenet > > > > features....probably. > > > > > > Actually, we are kindof working towards a GCJ Freenet, kindof. Ideally > > > we'd like to use a 'free' Java runtime but the alternatives seem to not be > > > as stable or fully-featured as Sun's, so we're relying on Sun JRE for now. > > > > We (GNU Classpath and Kaffe hackers) had a very productive developer > > meeting at the latest LinuxTag. The topic of java.nio (which is the > > major missing thing to get Freenet running on a free java-like > > environment) came up a couple of times. There is already a lot of work > > done to get this implemented, but of course the last 10%... > > > > Please monitor the gcj, classpath and kaffe mailinglist (the projects do > > work closely together) to see what progress we are making. We can > > certainly use people to get Freenet working and tested with gcj and/or > > kaffe when we have all pieces in place. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mark > > > > > > --__--__-- > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:48:25 +0100 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Re: Please produce a bundled installer > > From: Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Content-Disposition: inline > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:16:26AM +0100, Dave Hooper wrote: > > > As I understand it, yes, we're blatantly in violation, but bundling the > > > JRE into the installer is also in violation. Again, as I understand it, > > > if we bundle JRE with Freenet, we should try to ensure that it is not > > > usable by other applications. > > > > Read the license terms I pasted above. Put the sun installer file in the > > EXE and only extract it as part of the freenet install process. > > >=20 > > > I can see no way of achieving this. If indeed it is acceptable to bundle > > > the JRE installer inside a 'heavy installer' then what's preventing any > > > casual user downloading the heavy installer just for the JRE? I think > > > *this* is what Sun really wants to prevent. I believe that if we bundle > > > Sun JRE we *cannot* use Sun's JRE installer. > > >=20 > > > The only solutions I see are to produce our own installer for JRE (not > > > fun, no thank you) or just scrap the automatic download of the JRE and > > > request that the users go to java.sun.com and download it themselves. > > >=20 > > > And then we're back where we started with a user-unfriendly installer. > > >=20 > > > <shrug> > > >=20 > > > d > > >=20 > > > > The best option is probably for the lite installer to download and run > > > > the heavy installer if it detects that the user does not have the JRE > > > > installed. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 02:34:47AM +0100, toad wrote: > > > >> Please produce a freenet-wininstall.exe variation that includes the JR= > > E, > > > >> in the same file. Then delete the illegal files > > > >> j2re-1_4_1_02-windows-i586-i.exe, j2re-1_4_1_03-windows-i586-i.exe and > > > >> jre-win32-latest.exe from http://freenetproject.org/snapshots/ > > > >> > > > >> Then email me to say you have done it. I will delete the files if you > > > >> will just deal with the wininstallers. > > > >> > > > >> You may want to make a wininstaller version that does not include the > > > >> JRE, we can link to both versions. > > > >> > > > >> This is a release blocker, although there are a few others. > > > >> -- > > > >> Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > > > >> ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > > > > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > > > > > > >=20 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > devl mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > > --=20 > > Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > > > > --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA > > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > > Content-Disposition: inline > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iD4DBQE/E/gYr5e+zmpNTm8RAr/FAJ0cHmbgLc8rRqqVjnfvSh185Jg0mACY92xb > > 5nrXKjlEb5syovIBBTdyRg== > > =to6Z > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA-- > > > > > > --__--__-- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devl mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > > > > End of devl Digest > _______________________________________________ > devl mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
