>>> [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

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     01 EE 31 F6 BB 0C 34 36  00 F3 7C 5A C1 A0 67 1D