Brian Russo wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 01:48:31PM +0100, ep71 wrote: <- that's me, CG
> >
> >
>
> > Can I take it that everyone is happy about the range of licences under
> > which VMs for Java are now available?  (Sun's licence, GPL (Kaffe))?
>
> Sun's licence
> (riotous laughter ensues) - If you can call that a license,
> actually read it?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I ever did finish reading it.  Just as I
never read
Sun's Embedded Java Application Environment Specification:
  <URL:http://java.sun.com/products/embeddedjava/spec/index.html>
I mean if I'm not allowed to use it for ``productive use'', what's the ***ing
point?

>
> ..
>
> (was a separate subthread I know, but I'll save the extra email,
> and will try to keep this short - honest)
>
> the question 'why have bsd when theres lgpl' was raised.
>
> basically..
>
> bsd  - do whatever you want,
>        modify/distribute/sell/relicense it/whatever
>            -- we don't care, because we already have the code.
>
> lgpl - your sekret code can link to it, but our code
>        stays open, and any changes will be open/free,
>            -- 'help the community'.
>

Yes, I know that.  And I can extend BSDish code to use someone
else's S3/<R3T API without giving away that party's secrets, whereas
with LGPLish code I can't: so if the secrets are not mine to give away,
I cannot distribute the modified code.  This is exactly what Stallman
intended, and the LPGL spends 4400 words on making sure it happens.

Regards

Chris