Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 25 May 2006, Mike Bird verbalised:
> On Wednesday 24 May 2006 22:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 24 May 2006, MJ Ray outgrape:
>>> Steve Langasek <email@example.com>
>>> Anthony Towns already mentioned: 'both James and Jeroen had
>>> extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were
>>> actually okay' so surely there was some doubt?
>> There was perhaps no doubt after clarification and discussions
>> with sun? In that case, there wou,d be no need to waste time and
>> energy dealing with -legal.
> Would the Secretary then please post the legally binding document
> signed by Sun which clarifies and/or amends Sun's license.
Oh, grow the hell up. And learn to read -- I wasn't involved
in the decision, and never said so -- I just hypothesized that
people who did take the decision might not have been in doubt.
And if polemics are what you are after, I suggest you take
this offlione and have a nice little rant by yourself. From the tone
of your response (and now mine) it is pretty obvious that a
discussion is not what you are after.
If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C