Re: JFORK: Or a reasonable response to the Sun SCSL
bernd kreimeier wrote:
> Java the language (sans all the added classes) might well be
> implemented using a different VM. The school does not care
> whether it is a JVM using 8bit bytecode, or some entirely
> different VM using expanding opcodes or 16bit bytecode or...
>
> Java the language can also be compiled to native code.
>
> Your point seems depressingly correct though with respect to
> all the additional APIs that might be used in schools and
> colleges (I can see it already - realtime graphics with
> Java3D - depressing indeed).
>
> > > "free" software ceases to exist. If Linas Torvalds decided that the next
> > > kernel version of Linux was not to be GPL software, he has the right to
> > > do it.
>
> It is Linus, and this is bollocks.
-------------------------------------------
Sorry about the spelling.
Linus can place all his
> personally written code under a different license at any time,
> he can't do that for code written by others. One effect
> of the GPL/LGPL license is that contributions from others
> infect your work, taking away your freedom to change the
> licensing for the whole.
---------------------------------------------
That is my point exactly. I reiterate "the next kernel version". This
has already been done by a number of folks that decided to change the
license of the software. By not allowing any additions of code by
contributors in the next version issued, any originator of code can then
implement a new license.
>
> This was exemplified when Mesa switched from LGPL to BSD
> to accomodate XFree86 requirements. Brian Paul needed
> permission from every contributor.
>
> > > Does that shock you?
>
> Quite frankly, it does.
--------------------------------------------------------
Remember I started this chain of thought by stating that I do not
disagree with making a profit on software, only by doing so via
deceptive trade practices, or bait and switch scenarios.
--
John Foster
AdVance-Computing Systems
jfoster@augustmail.com
ICQ# 19460173
Reply to: