Re: jdk not working in potato, working jdk removed from incoming, license problem
jim@laney.edu wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I am given to understand that someone has found a problem in the license of
> jdk, to the point that same person finds that debian cannot distribute the jdk
> at all. I was told that the problem found in the license has existed for a
> long time.
>
> If this is the case,
>
> WHY is a jdk that doesn't even work in potato? By precisely the same token,
> why is there a jdk in ANY debian dist?? Is there a difference in the license
> between versions? Has anyone talked to Sun?
>
> If this is NOT the case,
>
> Can this be resolved quickly please? I would imagine that it is the intent of
> Sun that Java in its pure form would make it big. I have a few java projects
> that I'm taking off the back burner presently, and now this.
>
> Inquiring, jdk-using minds want to know.
[This is intended to be a helpful comment - I hope it doesn't come
across as a troll]
Kaffe (www.kaffe.org) is, in my experience, a fast and efficient
replacement for the JDK (1.1, some of 1.2 is implemented). It includes
a native AWT and a JIT, and whilst performance isn't excellent, it's as
good as jdk-interpreted, and.... it's open source. Completely.
Including a reimplementation of classes.zip, clean-room, ground-up, with
source code.
The Kaffe team are, in my experience, swift to response to, and fix,
bugs (more than you can say for Sun).
So, if you have a Java project, at least assess whether or not it is
feasible to use kaffe (and support open source!).
Jules
--
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: