does anyone have time for a minor project?

Hello everyone! I have had some requests from the various lists that I have belong asking me to get a /. style news site up that details tech law events, legal developments, and interpretations. I would like to use my domain 'ompages.com' for this. One problem. I can't code! I don't understa

Re: IBM Public Source License

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I read the GPL (section 2, b) it requires that the *entire source* > > for binaries you distibute must itself be distributed under GPL; so > > the license will only be GPL compatible if it allows the source

Freeness of Java: decision needs to be taken

[Cross-posted to debian-java and debian-legal because it is both a Java-specific problem and a legal/political one.] I maintain several Java packages whose licence make them eligible for 'main'. But I assume (the Policy seems silent on this point, but my assumpti

Re: Freeness of Java: decision needs to be taken

Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, should we move *every* Java package to 'contrib'? If they have been compiled with guavac and they'll run on kaffe then, not necessarily: extra is fine -- they should merely have relevant bugs filed against them. Otherwise yes. -- Raul

Re: Freeness of Java: decision needs to be taken

On Friday 2 July 1999, at 8 h 10, the keyboard of Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If they have been compiled with guavac and they'll run on kaffe then, These two packages are not (yet?) usable for any practical work. Who compiles its Java packages with guavac? Runs its production Java

Re: Freeness of Java: decision needs to be taken

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If they have been compiled with guavac and they'll run on kaffe then, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > These two packages are not (yet?) usable for any practical work. Who > compiles its Java packages with guavac? Runs its production Java

Re: Freeness of Java: decision needs to be taken

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Jikes belongs to IBM, so they'll may be change their licence This is quite likely. > So, should we move *every* Java package to 'contrib'? If IBM doesn't re-license Jikes. Thanks Bruce

IBM public license

This is what I got back from IBM's attorney. Given that there seem to be other problems that would prevent GPL compatibility, I don't think I'll pursue this further. Thanks Bruce > > I am a little confused by the scenario, but let me try to help. I am not sure > why C would go t

Re: Freeness of Java: decision needs to be taken

On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 18:04:39 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Jikes belongs to IBM, so they'll may be change their licence > > This is quite likely. Hasn't this happened already? Quoting http://www.research.ibm.com/jikes/license/index.htm : :

Re: IBM public license

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is what I got back from IBM's attorney. Given that there seem to > be other problems that would prevent GPL compatibility, I don't think > I'll pursue this further. That's up to you, of course. Basically, this just seems to be a line of reasonin