Thanks Oskar - seems I spoke too soon.
Maybe then we need to go back to the 'with-java' freenet.
Maybe it's worth approaching Sun and getting a clarification.
- Original Message -
From: "Oskar Sandberg"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [
And, if Freenet now works with windoze jview.exe, then this whole 'with
java' freenet can fly to the bit-bucket - good riddance!
And, if the Freenet with jview.exe problem is sorted, then why the hell
bother with finding other versions of java? Maybe stick another option "Use
windows java interpre
Was it as simple as that?
** WAY COOL!! ** :))
- Original Message -
From: "Benjamin Coates"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:21 PM
Subject: RE: [freenet-devl] JRE License
> >From "David McNab"
> >Hmmm, I humbly confess I hadn't noticed the non-
Yes, I think that this is a problem too. AFAIK, to "idemnify" Sun is
to defend them against legal challenges. Probably don't want to get
into that. A real lawyers opinion would come in handy at this point.
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:57:12AM -0700, Mr.Bad wrote:
> * We agree to indemnify
Yes, I think that this is a problem too. AFAIK, to "idemnify" Sun is
to defend them against legal challenges. Probably don't want to get
into that. A real lawyers opinion would come in handy at this point.
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:57:12AM -0700, Mr.Bad wrote:
> * We agree to indemnif
>From devl at freenetproject.org
>fserve.exe is only used in the console mode or when e.g. calling the Setup
script (which will already solve
>some issues). It was never used when starting Freenet through the system tray
utility, so any issues
>caused when running this will not be solved by modi
> "BC" == Benjamin Coates writes:
BC> The reason the node wasn't running before was because the
BC> config file was broken. (Well, to be exact, the node was
BC> running, fproxy just couldn't find it)... Unless there are
BC> other problem(s) I'm not aware of.
The config file
> "BC" == Benjamin Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BC> The reason the node wasn't running before was because the
BC> config file was broken. (Well, to be exact, the node was
BC> running, fproxy just couldn't find it)... Unless there are
BC> other problem(s) I'm not aware
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>fserve.exe is only used in the console mode or when e.g. calling the Setup
script (which will already solve
>some issues). It was never used when starting Freenet through the system tray
utility, so any issues
>caused when running this will not be solved by modifying fs
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:09:20AM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> And, if Freenet now works with windoze jview.exe, then this whole 'with
> java' freenet can fly to the bit-bucket - good riddance!
Define "works". As of last time we dealt with it, Freenet did run with
jview and you could request and i
lem with is modifying or removing any of their
classes. The 'with java' version has all Sun's java classes intact, so is
fully license-compliant].
- Original Message -
From: "eric Kvam"
To: "Mr.Bad"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: [fre
"David McNab" wrote on 2.5.2001 13:50:06:
>
>> On that note, I checked in a version of fserve.c / fserve.exe and
>flaunch.ini
>> that should work with either jvm, so it will be possible to re-enable
>> detection of jview/jview when the next installer gets made.
>
>Is that so?
>Can Freenet now work
freenetproject.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 315B658005
for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 05:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.82.155.164] by smtp.web.de with smtp
(freemail 4.2.1.8 #22) id m14uvLw-007RLFC; Wed, 2 May 2001 14:03 +0200
From: Sebastian Sp?th
Subject: Re:[2] [freenet-devl] JRE
Hmmm, I humbly confess I hadn't noticed the non-redistributability clause.
However, the with-java version remains the fastest, easiest and most
reliable way of getting Freenet up and running successfully on windoze. I
>From "David McNab"
>Hmmm, I humbly confess I hadn't noticed the non-redistributability clause.
>
>However, the with-java version remains the fastest, easiest and most
>reliable way of getting Freenet up and running successfully on windoze. I
>challenge anyone to come up with a better scheme.
On
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] JRE License
> On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:09:20AM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> > And, if Freenet now works with windoze jview.exe, then this whole 'with
> > java' freenet can fly to the bit-bucket - good riddance!
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:09:20AM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> And, if Freenet now works with windoze jview.exe, then this whole 'with
> java' freenet can fly to the bit-bucket - good riddance!
Define "works". As of last time we dealt with it, Freenet did run with
jview and you could request and
;Benjamin Coates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:21 PM
Subject: RE: [freenet-devl] JRE License
> >From "David McNab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Hmmm, I humbly confess I hadn't noticed the non-redistributa
"David McNab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2.5.2001 13:50:06:
>
>> On that note, I checked in a version of fserve.c / fserve.exe and
>flaunch.ini
>> that should work with either jvm, so it will be possible to re-enable
>> detection of jview/jview when the next installer gets made.
>
>Is that so?
>
Benjamin Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2.5.2001 13:21:01:
>On that note, I checked in a version of fserve.c / fserve.exe and flaunch.ini
>that should work with either jvm, so it will be possible to re-enable
>detection of jview/jview when the next installer gets made. Note that it is
>al
Was it as simple as that?
** WAY COOL!! ** :))
- Original Message -
From: "Benjamin Coates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:21 PM
Subject: RE: [freenet-devl] JRE License
> >From "David McNab" <[EMAIL PROT
>From "David McNab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Hmmm, I humbly confess I hadn't noticed the non-redistributability clause.
>
>However, the with-java version remains the fastest, easiest and most
>reliable way of getting Freenet up and running successfully on windoze. I
>challenge anyone to come up with a
ost (blanu at localhost)
by curly.cc.utexas.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/cc-uts-1.30) with ESMTP id BAA20989
for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 01:09:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon
X-X-Sender:
To:
Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] JRE License
In-Reply-To: <871yq8xpov.fsf at
priss.bad-people-of-the-future.sa
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 10:27:30PM -0700, Mr. Bad wrote:
> > "TC" == Tavin Cole writes:
>
> TC> However, can we not simply make it a part of _our_ license
> TC> agreement that they agree to indemnify us w/r/to problems
> TC> resulting from the JRE as well as Fred?
>
> That's an i
> So, what if we distribute an installer that is capable of downloading
> and installing the Sun JRE on behalf of the user, but doesn't actually
> bundle it?
Written in what language? C, I suppose. It's not a bad idea. I see some
issues with dialup users downloading the installer, disconnecting,
> Not to mention that it's distasteful from an information freedom
> perspective. Here we have Freenet, which enables one to redistribute
> stuff far and wide, but we're asking users not to distribute the
> program itself? Seems kind of lame.
All of the legalese stuff I agree is something that ne
> * The package with JRE included is non-redistributable. That
> is, people can't download the exe with the JRE in it and
> post it anywhere.
I don't have a practical problem with this. My philosophical distaste is
overridden by the incredible boost in ease of install
> "DM" == David McNab writes:
DM> Yeah - pulling the 'with java' version of Freenet is
DM> over-reacting.
I don't feel qualified to make the decision to accept the JRE license
on behalf of the Freenet Project. If that's overreacting, color me
overreacting. I figure it's better to clo
> So, what if we distribute an installer that is capable of downloading
> and installing the Sun JRE on behalf of the user, but doesn't actually
> bundle it?
Written in what language? C, I suppose. It's not a bad idea. I see some
issues with dialup users downloading the installer, disconnecting,
> Not to mention that it's distasteful from an information freedom
> perspective. Here we have Freenet, which enables one to redistribute
> stuff far and wide, but we're asking users not to distribute the
> program itself? Seems kind of lame.
All of the legalese stuff I agree is something that n
the troubles with us redistributing the Sun JRE
Bad, you suggested we redistribute Kaffe instead. Has anyone really
gotten Fred working with Kaffe? Cause I believe we'd have to build it
off CVS and apply some patches.. plus all the problems you mentioned
with building it on Win32. So eventu
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 10:27:30PM -0700, Mr. Bad wrote:
> > "TC" == Tavin Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TC> However, can we not simply make it a part of _our_ license
> TC> agreement that they agree to indemnify us w/r/to problems
> TC> resulting from the JRE as well as Fr
> "DM" == David McNab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DM> Yeah - pulling the 'with java' version of Freenet is
DM> over-reacting.
I don't feel qualified to make the decision to accept the JRE license
on behalf of the Freenet Project. If that's overreacting, color me
overreacting. I figur
ldn't modify the original JRE installer but I got the impression that it
was allright either way.
--Original Message--
From: "Mr.Bad"
To: devl at freenetproject.org
Sent: May 1, 2001 6:57:12 PM GMT
Subject: [freenet-devl] JRE License
>>>>> "B" ==
On Wed, 2 May 2001, David McNab wrote:
> As for indemnifying Sun against JRE misbehaviour - is this *really* such a
> problem?
Heh:
// Copyright 2000, Mr. Bad of Pigdog Journal (http://www.pigdog.org/).
// All Rights Reserved.
// This software is distributed under the GNU Public License, which
> "eK" == eric Kvam writes:
eK> I actually called Sun a week ago about licensing JRE for
eK> something I'm working on.
Is what you're working on a Free Software project?
~Mr. Bad
--
~
Mr. Bad | Pigdog Journal | htt
> "MJR" == Mark J Roberts writes:
DM> As for indemnifying Sun against JRE misbehaviour - is this
DM> *really* such a problem?
MJR> Heh:
Me> // Copyright 2000, Mr. Bad of Pigdog Journal [...]
Me> THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS
Me> OR IMPLIED
> "eK" == eric Kvam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
eK> I actually called Sun a week ago about licensing JRE for
eK> something I'm working on.
Is what you're working on a Free Software project?
~Mr. Bad
--
~
Mr. Bad <[E
> "MJR" == Mark J Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DM> As for indemnifying Sun against JRE misbehaviour - is this
DM> *really* such a problem?
MJR> Heh:
Me> // Copyright 2000, Mr. Bad of Pigdog Journal [...]
Me> THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRES
> * The package with JRE included is non-redistributable. That
> is, people can't download the exe with the JRE in it and
> post it anywhere.
I don't have a practical problem with this. My philosophical distaste is
overridden by the incredible boost in ease of install
On Wed, 2 May 2001, David McNab wrote:
> As for indemnifying Sun against JRE misbehaviour - is this *really* such a
> problem?
Heh:
// Copyright 2000, Mr. Bad of Pigdog Journal (http://www.pigdog.org/).
// All Rights Reserved.
// This software is distributed under the GNU Public License, which
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: [freenet-devl] JRE License
> I actually called Sun a week ago about licensing JRE for something I'm
> working on. After a few days I Eventually got a callback from regional
> manager Shawnee Williams. She sai
ldn't modify the original JRE installer but I got the impression that it
was allright either way.
--Original Message--
From: "Mr.Bad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: May 1, 2001 6:57:12 PM GMT
Subject: [freenet-devl] JRE License
>>>>> &
e of the /. posts relating to FreeWeb criticised me for attempting to
make Freenet user-friendly ??!?
- Original Message -
From: "Mr.Bad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:57 AM
Subject: [freenet-devl] JRE License
> >
> "B" == Bad writes:
B> Also, IIRC, there are some redistribution issues with adding a
B> JRE to your projects -- which is one reason that it's rare to
B> see JREs included with Free Software projects.
B> Has anyone checked this out yet?
OK, I just did check it out, and I'm
> "B" == Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
B> Also, IIRC, there are some redistribution issues with adding a
B> JRE to your projects -- which is one reason that it's rare to
B> see JREs included with Free Software projects.
B> Has anyone checked this out yet?
OK, I just did c
46 matches
Mail list logo
