There must be some surrealistic reinterpretation going on here. You said that they said:
No - it is VERY simple, I don't see why people are having such trouble grasping this. I spoke to one person, they gave me duff advice, then I spoke to someone else that was more senior, and they said what I quoted in the recent thread. In law, when two things contradict each-other, the thing that was said most recently takes precedence. I am going with the most recent advice I got from a Sun representative.
I'll need something in writing saying you'll take full responsibility, with 2 witnesses to the fact that you wrote it. If I was going to implement it. Which I am not, unless asked to.
Seriously, it really pisses me off when people get all excited and forget that they don't actually have law degrees and start pontificating about signatures and witnesses and other things they saw on Ally McBeal.
*I* spoke to this woman directly, had a long conversation with her, explained to her *exactly* how our installer worked, and she said:
"We do have a requirement, when distributing the JRE, to bundle it with your own software, in this case freenet. There is nothing in our requirements that should prevent you from having a "smart" installer, that installs the JRE only if the user needs it, so long as the JRE is never installed without also installing the freenet software."
Only someone desperate to inflict maximum suffering on our Windows users could interpret that as saying that our approach isn't ok, particular if we take precautions such as using a username and password and a non-listable directory.
Ian.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
