> > [T]he [JDK source] license specifically rules out distributing the
> > source [...]
> 
> > Sun are obviously determined to see java spread.
> 
> Heh.  Anyone else see the inconsistency between these two statements?
> 
> Can anyone name any piece of software that has become widespread
> without either (a) being freely distributed and distributable in source
> form (eg, X11, perl), (b) having _lots_ of marketing dollars behind it
> (eg, almost anything from Micr*s*ft), or (c) being the only thing that
> will run on some piece of hardware (eg, vendor OS for most new
> computers)?
> 
	While I'm not one to regularly defend capitalist swine pig greedy
	software hoarding commercial vendors I think there could be a useful
	reason for NOT distributing source code without restrictions:

	Sun wants ONE, as in singular, version of JAVA out there. If source
	was distributed there would be 1 gazillion versions of JAVA all
	slightly or radically different from each other. I've seen this
	happen with many free software packages, oh let's say the *BSD
	crowd where there are 3 major branches due to politics and
personalitys...

	So, while one could get pissed at the greedyi, capitolist, software
	hoarding pigs for not giving out JAVA VM source code freely I would
	like to suggest those of us who rely on JAVA meaning one COMMON
	platform are better off in the long run if there isn't "Joe's JAVA",
	"Frank's JAVA", "Micky's JAVA", "Jane's JAVA", "Sue's JAVA", etc...

		-Rob