[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Quitting debian-java

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:

> * Alexander Hvostov <vulture@aoi.dyndns.org> [010302 18:23]:
> > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> > unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> > wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page devoted to GNU Java
> > software!
> I think we may need to agree to disagree on this. Here is my example of
> perfectly legitimate Java that still cannot be run on a system entirely
> under the DFSG:

I guess we'll have to, because I _still_ don't agree. Read below...

> Java application with Swing interface using RMI and Java.Security.
> Because the Build-Depends are only currently available through non-free
> software this application will be relegated to non-free or contrib. (I
> don't recall which, contrib is most likely.)

Note operative keyword _currently_. As I keep trying to point out, this is
a temporary problem, because of the way Sun created Java -- that is, they
intended and encouraged clean-room reimplementations, and published
detailed and specific specifications and a community process to insure
that Java remains an open standard, if perhaps with a closed reference

> I may very well be woefully unaware of reality -- it has happened
> before. :) Please tell me how I can support Swing, RMI, and
> Java.Security using only tools that satisfy the DFSG. :)
> Note also that Java2D, Java3D, etc., could be replaced for Swing, RMI,
> java.security, above. I imagine similar stories could be told about

Java 2D is built into the Java 2 platform. Java 3D and the rest of the
Java Media extension (javax.media.*) is designed to encourage clean-room
reimplementations just like Java proper. I don't know about JINI, but I
imagine it's the same way.



Reply to: