Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th Jun 2008 20:28 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Back in May 2006, Sun announced during the JavaOne conference it would release Java as open source, licensed as GPL software. While it was released as GPL, it still contained about 5 percent proprietary, non-free code - the Java trap, as the FSF calls it. The FSF called to dismantle this trap, and now the IcedTea project has reached an important milestone.
Thread beginning with comment 319341
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Not when you're only counting distributions that matter.
No , no , no , no , Many is nothing compared to all distribution. There is not one distribution that matter more then the other in GNU/Linux ... BTW since it's GPL other OS will be able to use it too ...
Splitting hairs.
No , it's called reality ... Sure java existed and Sun supported some platform on GNU/Linux but it was incomplete.
[/q]"Sorry, but your statements go against publicly available evidence to the contrary. Thus, I will have to disagree. " [/q]
I guess I missed those non existent public evidence ...
Feel free to show them , meaning give a link to them , because the existence of the complete 100% GPL solution show you as being wrong from every angle you have discussed so far ...
"It could be 100% bsd,"
Nope as there is no 100% BSD , I will say "yet" with the hope that one will appear but with BSD I have long seen reality and moved on , because there is no real demand or fund or community behind it. Otherwise someone would have jumped on-board or asked for it when the real job was being done ... Sun was created by BSD people and yet they made sure there license kept the BSD out ... Even the GNU/Linux developer dual license a lot of there software/driver to BSD.
" The license does not matter."
Then you don't have a problem with it being GPL then , well that's not really the truth or reality as seen by your rant and whining so far.
License do matter for realist and pragmatist.
That's why GNU/Linux is commercially supported as opposed to everything else and as commercial company worth billions and millions with recognized projects...
Pragmatic get the job done ... 100% GPL , done.
BSD , well I am sure the parade of the "me too" beggar is about to start it's worldwide tour soon ... They will go on a political farce saying how BSD is as important as GNU/Linux is ... I wonder where those people where all along when the project where discussed and started and the code got created ...
You do know that the GPL is compatible with BSD , but that BSD refuse to include the code for "political" reasons ...
RE[7]: The Java Trap
by binarycrusader on Fri 20th Jun 2008 14:53
in reply to "RE[6]: The Java Trap"
Member since:2005-07-06
"Splitting hairs.
No , it's called reality ... Sure java existed and Sun supported some platform on GNU/Linux but it was incomplete. "
Sorry, but that's relative (so is reality, just ask a physicist).
""Sorry, but your statements go against publicly available evidence to the contrary. Thus, I will have to disagree. "
I guess I missed those non existent public evidence ...
Feel free to show them , meaning give a link to them , because the existence of the complete 100% GPL solution show you as being wrong from every angle you have discussed so far ... "
Sorry, I guess I missed your non-existent public evidence too.
How does the existence of a "100% GPL solution" show me as being wrong from every angle?
The license does not matter.
""It could be 100% bsd,"
Nope as there is no 100% BSD , I will say "yet" with the hope that one will appear but with BSD I have long seen reality and moved on , because there is no real demand or fund or community behind it. Otherwise someone would have jumped on-board or asked for it when the real job was being done ... Sun was created by BSD people and yet they made sure there license kept the BSD out ... Even the GNU/Linux developer dual license a lot of there software/driver to BSD. "
You're confusing the BSD operating systems and the BSD license. They are not the same.
"" The license does not matter."
Then you don't have a problem with it being GPL then , well that's not really the truth or reality as seen by your rant and whining so far. "
I don't have a problem with it being GPL. I never did. I was merely pointing out that it being GPL does not somehow make it a superior solution to a BSD one, etc.
That's why GNU/Linux is commercially supported as opposed to everything else and as commercial company worth billions and millions with recognized projects...
Pragmatic get the job done ... 100% GPL , done.
Pragmatic get the job done ... 100% GPL , done.
Lots of other things that are not GPL also get the job done. Apache is NOT GPL at all, and it arguably gets the job done very well. It also has very strong commercial support.
The same goes for perl, Python, and many other things.
You do know that the GPL is compatible with BSD , but that BSD refuse to include the code for "political" reasons ...
No, they refuse to include it because they don't want their code to be forced to change licenses in certain cases.
They also care about the freedoms of their users, commercial and non-commercial.
Edited 2008-06-20 14:54 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Many is nothing compared to all distribution ... "
Not when you're only counting distributions that matter.
In certain case , in others it was the problem. "
Splitting hairs.
I know your not part of the process. Your even against the process. Your also disconnected from reality. "
Sorry, but your statements go against publicly available evidence to the contrary. Thus, I will have to disagree.
It could be 100% bsd, and it will still have that chance. The license does not matter.