Fred Fox wrote:
>>I don't
>>care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary code
>>to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
>>restrictions that that entails.
>
>
> The day you don't just want to link proprietary code, but want to make a
> propriet
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 06:20:18PM -0500, Fred Fox wrote:
> > I don't
> > care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary code
> > to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
> > restrictions that that entails.
>
> The day you don't just want to link p
On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:23 PM, David N. Welton wrote:
Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that
you
get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different
from
noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
download that aren't under the s
> I don't
> care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary code
> to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
> restrictions that that entails.
The day you don't just want to link proprietary code, but want to make a
proprietary modification to Grego
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 11:23:02PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that you
> get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different from
> noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
> download that are
Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that you
get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different from
noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
download that aren't under the same terms as the rest of the code.
As far as I'm concerne
