Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:39:32 -0700
From:      Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
To:        Ruslan Shevchenko <Ruslan@Shevchenko.kiev.ua>
Cc:        "Eric J. Chet" <ejc@bazzle.com>, stephen farrell <stephen@farrell.org>, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: freebsd port of omnibroker UPDATE
Message-ID:  <199801181739.KAA00551@mt.sri.com>
In-Reply-To: <34C0E3CA.16574FCD@Shevchenko.kiev.ua>
References:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.980118093929.22928B-100000@gargoyle.bazzle.com> <34C0E3CA.16574FCD@Shevchenko.kiev.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > ? ?         I have been doing a lot of java work lateley, the new port will
> > ? ? include java.  I like Ruslan's patches better than mine for the chat demo,
...
> > There is a porting effort of JDK-1.1.5 to freebsd, the problem is at this
> > point you must have a source license from Sun to build the latest JDK.
> 

> problem, that I have not source license and I don't wont to have it,
> becausethis would restrict me in working Java-related cleanroom
> projects.
> 
> Why RedHat Linux have binary JDK as RPM, but FreeBSD have not binary JDK
> in ports ?

I'll let RedHat Linux worry about the licensing issues.  As I read them,
you are *NOT* allowed to distribute the JDK as a package, but you *can*
distribute it as a port, similar to how the netscape port it done.  The
reason it hasn't been built as a port is the JDK port is still in
transition, and not yet complete.

> I guess, that putting binary Sun JDK in ports with reading
> binary licension in pre-install is legal.

Feel free to do such a thing, but IMHO this is not legal.



Nate



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801181739.KAA00551>