> > 2) I don't see the trademark problem. There are already virtual > > packages that use the word java. What would be the difference > > between continuing the same trend? > > There is a trademark problem. The java1|2 virtual packages were targeted > to Sun's, IBM's and Blackdown JVM version 1.1.x and 1.2. By extension, > we have use the virtual packages with java1 for free runtimes and java2 > for non-free runtimes. But I'm pretty sure there is a legal problem here. The fact is that java1 has been used by free runtimes, so I don't see any reason why something with the word java would be any different now. If there is a legal problem, it should be specifically identified. > >>Maybe you have another proposal (I mean a legal one ;-)) > > > > As far as I can tell, the only real issue is #1 above. If that is the > > case then I propose: > > > > java-jre > > java-jdk > > This is not a problem if you refer to a Sun trademarked Java product > (and affiliated vendors like IBM, Blackdown etc) > > > java-jre-nonfree > > java-jdk-nonfree > > So you think Sun will be OK with that? I'm not sure. > > > The first two would be used by all implementations, whether free of > > non-free. The last two would be reserved for non-free implementations. > > That's what we want but with classpath-* for free java and java-* for > non-free implementations. But I strongly disagree with using classpath-* for free versions, and saving java for non-free implementations. That encourages the use of the non-free implementations. How about java-* for both free and non-free, and then if some package explicitely requires non-free they can depend on sun-java5-jre. Charles -- Saves your Jack -- Holds your Jill Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1939/saves_your_jack
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature