Re: Servlets, was Re: Various issues: kaffe, compilers, freeness, etc.
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 10:24:17AM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> The servlet.jar in Kaffe will not work. It is only a shell. There is another
> LGPL implementation that was written by Paul Siegmann and Mark Wielaard. It
> is available at: http://www.euronet.nl/~pauls/java/servlet
> I have been able to get this working with Kaffe and JServ.
> It was not easy, per se, but not difficult.
That is nice to hear. I have our classes running with Apache JServ, but
since neither Paul nor I run it in a production environment we have not
advertised the library very much. They really should be integrated in the
Classpath project (we already assigned copyright to the FSF, but we didn't
have time to really put them in the Classpath CVS).
> You definatly must run JServ in the "manual"
> mode. I created an /etc/init.d script to start it seperatly.
If you could email me (privately) what we should change about the classes
(or packaging) that would make it more easy to use with Apache JServ
I would really appreciate it.
I am also currently maintaining GNUJSP. (Although other people write the code,
and I only collect the patches and maintain the web pages. Which reminds me
that I should also release a new version since someone discovered a DOS.)
Have you used it togheter with the class library and that free Kopi compiler?
(Isn't the new version of the Jikes compiler also Free Software? I thought
that they had changed their license.)
I have Debian running now on my system, but I have not been brave enough to
install the unstable release to check if the GNUJSP Debian package really
works. GNUJSP and Apache JServ are in Contrib now. Would our classes (and the
Kopi compiler) allow it to move to main? And how can I package our Servlet
class library for Debian?
Sorry to sound like a Debian newbie. But I really are a Debian newbie.
A little note on the licensing issue. I personally make sure that I do not
have to accept any license before I use any Specification or Javadoc. And
since Sun does allow others to publish books about the various java
class specifications (which do try to explain and interpet the intent of
the specification). I think it is also save to implement a specification
(since it is also a way to explain and interpet the specification). Why would
O'Reilly be allowed to publish a book on the specification, but we would not
be allowed to publish source code implementing that same specification?
But I do agree that real legal advise on this subject would be nice.
(I have actually bought two O'Reilly books on Java 2 security and would like
to implement some classes for the classpath project. Which I could not claim
to be according to the official specification since I use third party books.
But since I do not use any of Suns material directly would I be clean?)
Cheers,
Mark
P.S. I am in another city and cannot easily read my email. So please do not
be offended if I do not react immediatly.
Reply to: