From owner-freebsd-java  Wed Sep  9 08:27:53 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA28054
          for freebsd-java-outgoing; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from wrath.cs.utah.edu (wrath.cs.utah.edu [155.99.198.100])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA28046
          for <freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from gback@cs.utah.edu)
Received: from sal.cs.utah.edu (sal.cs.utah.edu [155.99.192.111])
	by wrath.cs.utah.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA17726;
	Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:27:45 -0600 (MDT)
From: Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu>
Received: (from gback@localhost)
	by sal.cs.utah.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA13391;
	Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:27:43 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <199809091527.JAA13391@sal.cs.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: Daemonising a Java Process: Possible?
To: swindellsr@genrad.co.uk (Robert Swindells)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:27:43 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: gback@cs.utah.edu, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199809090938.CAA12739@hub.freebsd.org> from "Robert Swindells" at Sep 9, 98 02:38:00 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


 Robert,

> 
> >If so, why a binary-only release?  Is that your decision or would that
> >result from the licensing restrictions Sun puts on your port?
> 
> It just seemed safer not to be forced to release the source. It avoids
> giving Transvirtual any legal problems if Sun felt that the port gave
> away information about the internals of the JVM.
> 
> I was considering it to be "our" port anyway. The source could get
> added to the JDK CVS repository.
> 
> >>From my knowledge of the history of Kaffe's licenses, this would 
> >>appear to be the kind of behavior that led Transvirtual to using
> >>the (more restrictive) GPL in the first place.
> 
> I was always intending to offer the source back to Transvirtual.
> 

On one hand, you're saying you want to avoid legal trouble because
the port might give away information about Sun's JVM internals.
On the other hand, you're intending to offer the source back to
Transvirtual.  

How would Transvirtual's legal problems be reduced if only they
had access to sources that in your opinion might give away information
about Sun's JVM?

	- Godmar


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message