From owner-freebsd-java Sun Aug 20 8:50: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1088E37B43C for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 08:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25614; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 09:49:57 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08728; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 09:48:53 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 09:48:53 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200008201548.JAA08728@nomad.yogotech.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Koster, K.J." Cc: "'Greg Lewis'" , freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: JCK License implications (was: State of Server-Side Java) In-Reply-To: <59063B5B4D98D311BC0D0001FA7E4522026D77D0@l04.research.kpn.com> References: <59063B5B4D98D311BC0D0001FA7E4522026D77D0@l04.research.kpn.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Well, it might be even worse than that. Its not clear to me > > that I'll still be able to release patchsets once we merge a > > newer version of the JDK 1.2.2 source code as that code will > > have been obtained under the same licensing conditions as the > > JCK. > > That merger had better give you a pretty great advantage, to make up > for the legal lock-out. At this point, *I'm* not worried about releasing patchkits on the 'released' bits. The linux patches contained newer bits, so I don't see the problem. > > I'm considering how this can be avoided while still making > > progress on a binary release. I really don't want to lose > > the possibility of things like Fuyuhiko-san's native thread > > patches happening in the future. > > > Perhaps you could track two patchsets. One for Sun's newer code, and one for > Sun's public release. See above. > Alternately, perhaps we could tell Sun that this is a blocking problem > for a community effort, and ask them to release the newer code under > SCSL. Given that we *just* got access to the bits, I'd really rather not start throwing our weight around. We're a pretty small entity to try and guilting Sun into behaving like we'd like them. > After all, it is yesterday's technology, with 1.3 on the market. :-) 1.3 isn't even in a full release, so I wouldn't call it 'on the market'. It's more like in beta-test, sort of like the patches. :) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message