On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I meant it's copyright / license block comment. > > Same reason every other files does.
That is not a source code, BTW corresponding RI's files do not have copyrights. > > ...and why drl.policy? any objection to changing it back? I'm not sure it is legal to use 'java' unless it is explicitely required by the spec. 'java.security' is required by the spec. How about 'drl.policy'? Thanks, Mikhail > > Regards, > Tim > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > java.security also does not have a license... > > > > Why do you think they have to have a license? > > > > Thanks, > > Mikhail > > > > On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from > >> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Tim > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >> IBM Java technology centre, UK. > >> > > > > -- > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > IBM Java technology centre, UK. >
