On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 03:30, David Durst wrote: > What you just state can in no other way be described but "That SUCKS!"
Didn't anyone ever tell you that life isn't fair? > Ok I get the point, I was not aware that they charged for each distributed > copy. Hmmm ponders a install/download wizard for java :) There is Netscape's .xpi installer for plugins, but it only works if you are using the browser as root, and automatic searching for plugins is disabled by default. > Ok, is there anyway that the RH partnership w/ IBM could be leveraged to > achieve the desired??? Not for me to say, for I am but a lowly support tech. We do ship IBMJava2-SDK and IBMJava2-JRE with Advanced Server (on an extra CD) but that product is not freely redistributable (in binary form) either. > It is sad at the analogy you just described. Is that really the > relationship between IBM, SUN and Linux right now??? It's business. Even if IBM or SUN "likes" linux, they would be foolish to not protect their IP if we were to begin shipping Java without a license to do so or do so without paying the appropriate royalties. The other problem has to do with the fact that even if we did have a license to redistribute their Java, how to you determine how many copies have been distributed? Just box sets? downloaded copies? How many times did you install from each of the CD sets you had made? Red Hat could conceivably be made responsible to pay for each of those copies, and it would eventually bankrupt them. > That would be suprising consider the implications of the the SUN/JAVA - MS > settlement. M$ does not allow people to freely copy and distribute their OS like Red Hat does, so they really can't be held liable for any unauthorized copies of Java going out. -- Chris Kloiber -- Psyche-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
