I still disagree. The fact that source is available and can
be changed allowed the blackdown group to port java to linux,
without which we wouldn't be on this list in the first place.
The linux java port is very significant to me and many others.
Yes, it's not the same as GNU, and not as desirable, but for
anyone who says it's the same as microsoft and and others,
I'm still waiting to see the VB source ported to linux.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Chris Abbey wrote:
> At 18:11 10/30/00 -0800, noisebrain wrote:
> >This (the license) does not negate the fact that the source is available
> >and can be changed.
>
> actually it does. What can you (legally) do with that changed source?
> Nothing. Can you give it to me in binary form? no. Can you give it to me
> in source form? no. Can you give it to me in a diff. No. It might as well
> be the old AT&T unix license. Yeah it's still better than say Windows,
> but it isn't GNU/Linux, it isn't xfree86, it isn't apache, it isn't perl,
> it isn't Open Source; but the more people who will buy into Sun's diluted
> concept the more they and the popular press will forget the real meaning.
> Please don't feed their delusions.
>
>
>
>
> now the forces of openness
> have a powerful and
> unexpected new ally
> http://ibm.com/linux/
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
