Re: GTK+-based AWR (was Re: On java programs & main/contrib)
On Sun, Jun 28, 1998 at 12:38:50AM -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote:
> Applying the idea of DFSG to something that defines a standard is an absurd.
> Like if you find a bug in the Java core classes - you gonna fix it, aren't
> you? And this is bad, because other implementation has that bug and the
> portability of the java code will be dramatically reduced.
> Or if someone wants to fork a development of java core classes (just like
> gcc/egcs) - where would that standard go?
It is not absurd at all. Maybe the GPL is not the right license by
itself, but something similiar, that requires the name to be changed
if there are *any* modifications, works quite well with standards.
You say that it cannot be called Java core classes or whatever if it
is modified. That way, you can still give out your fix, which might
be useful to people, as well as maintaining the integrity of the
standard.
This is sort of the same vein of thought as the Free Documentation
thread a few weeks ago..
Ciao,
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: