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

Re: Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk

Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org>
> The major question is about replacing java1-runtime, java1-compiler,
> java2-runtime and java2-compiler virtual packages by classpath-jre,
> classpath-jdk for free java implementation and java-jre and java-jdk for
> non-free implementations. More informations on the bug report #365408.
> Thanks to Cc to the bug report.

The java* virtual package names should not direct people to non-free
implementations when there are free implementations available.
This is a project-y opinion rather than a legal-y one.

> Charles Fry a Â?crit :
> [...]
> > 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.
> No because java programs that work with free implementations will depend
> on classpath-jre.

I think enough users will ask for Java in particular to cause problems.

> > 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.
> I think we have to ask on debian-legal about this but I'm sure we cannot
> use the java word if it's not something that has been approved by Sun.

A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name.
Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. 
I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: