> www.gjt.org
> CVS dir
> java/org/gjt/shark
I'll check it out, I'm there too. Isn't everything on GJT LGPLed?
> Actually it turns out you can have several levels of abstractionI have
> drivers directly on top of the hardware and yes the driver is
> non-portable
Very nice. I figured (hoped) i
This is for whoever was asking about a Java/C gadget. I don't know if it is
exactly what you need, but here it is.
http://www.irisa.fr/compose/harissa/
Daniel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
There is also a program at www.alphaworks.ibm.com that--supposedly--converts
Java to C++.
Daniel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Do downloading JDK source code (it seems to be ow available without all
these complicated paperwork) will taint me as far as classpath is
concerned ?
I do understand that I should not look at sun's classes while writing
for classpath, but they are available anyway in std distribution -
question i
Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
>
> Do downloading JDK source code (it seems to be ow available without all
> these complicated paperwork) will taint me as far as classpath is
> concerned ?
IANAL, and I haven't read the license. However, personally I'll be
avoiding it like the plague. My *guess* (and
Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
> And second question - can somebody summarize the license for me -for me
> it is lawyers garbage.
This is my interpretation of the license as nearly as I understand it,
without legal background or background in the laws of california nor any
laws of the united states.
This reply is written from a cursory scan of the ``Community Source
License'' for the JDK version 2. This reply certainly doesn't cover
all the reasons why the new JDK is not free software, such as
restrictions regarding naming of packages, but it does cover the
most prominent issue -- royalties.
> > And they really can't make it GPL now, after lots of companies have
> > forked over lots of cash to get in on the Java thing.
> Sun owns the copyright to the JDK. They can release it under any
> terms that they so desire, including the GPL.
In the case of Jini at least (I don't know the spe
> In the case of Jini at least (I don't know the specifics of the
> JDK) the royalty is something like $0.10. So if you sell
> 100 copies of your software Sun makes $1.
Are you using Microsoft Calculator again?
:-)
Oppps... $10.
Whats that Don Henley song... "Johny Can't Read"... :-)
..darcy
--
D'Arcy Smith
Sr. Software Engineer
Symantec Corp., Internet Tools Division
> -Original Message-
> From: Wes Biggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 5:24 PM
> To: D'Arcy Smith
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, D'Arcy Smith wrote:
> > > And they really can't make it GPL now, after lots of companies have
> > > forked over lots of cash to get in on the Java thing.
>
> > Sun owns the copyright to the JDK. They can release it under any
> > terms that they so desire, including the GPL.
> -Original Message-
> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, D'Arcy Smith wrote:
> > > > And they really can't make it GPL now, after lots of companies have
> > > > forked over lots of cash to get in on the Java thing.
> > > Sun owns the copyright to the JDK. They can release it under any
> > > terms t
> Ah... just being safe. There is nothing in the license agreement
> that I can see that stops someone who signed it from doing a
> clean room implementation as long as the Sun source is not
> referenced. Correct?
>
> ..darcy
>
I recently posted a suggestion to javalobby that Sun make periodice
Paul Fisher wrote:
I'm sorry, I just can't help responding. But let's not turn this into a
huge runaway thread - the mailing list is, after all, about Classpath,
not about the JDK.
> You are under no obligation to assign copyright to the FSF for
> modifications to Classpath. We only require ass
>Do downloading JDK source code (it seems to be ow available without all
>these complicated paperwork) will taint me as far as classpath is
>concerned ?
The source bundled distributed with the JDK is ok to download. I'm not
familiar with the new source pacakge or its license. However, looking a
15 matches
Mail list logo
