Subject: Re: JDK on *BSD
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Holo.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: current-users
Date: 11/17/1996 09:21:13
>>> [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?

> 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.

Isn't that exactly what you'll get anyway, only in binary form rather
than source form?  I don't recall seeing anything restricting
distribution of java engine binaries built from modified sources....

> 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...

You mean like Netscape's Java, Sun's Java, etc?  Given distribution of
binaries from modified sources, you'll already get a gazillion
different versions - just that the users will have all the problems
inherent in binary distributions on top of it all.

					der Mouse

		     01 EE 31 F6 BB 0C 34 36  00 F3 7C 5A C1 A0 67 1D