From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
Date: | 2006-07-11 17:34:49 |
Message-ID: | 20060711173449.GD17269@kenobi.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Josh Berkus (josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com) wrote:
> Actually, Sun has re-licensed the JRE to make it OSS-compatible (it's
> now available for Debian, for example) They're doing a Java licensing
> session at OSCON if you have any specific questions, or I can ping the
> Java Licensing Guru directly. But even if other JRE's aren't supported,
> licensing shouldn't be an obstacle.
Uhh.. Let's not go overboard here on exactly what Debian has done with
Sun's JVM. Technically, Sun's JVM is *not* part of Debian. The license
is (and even this is hotly debated...) acceptable enough for Debian's
ftp-masters to allow the Sun JVM to be distributed off Debian servers as
part of the 'non-free' archive. This *certainly* doesn't make it
OSS-compatible by any stretch (it isn't) and it's not acceptable for
inclusion in Debian proper.
I'm actually rather upset to see Sun making such blatently incorrect
statements. Josh, I truely hope that you weren't actually involved in
the Sun JVM-in-Debian work and so were unaware of the very important
distinction between "Distributed by Debian" and "in Debian/main".
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-07-11 18:05:42 | Re: More nuclear options |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-07-11 17:17:18 | Re: More nuclear options |