Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:27:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> To: swindellsr@genrad.co.uk (Robert Swindells) Cc: gback@cs.utah.edu, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Daemonising a Java Process: Possible? Message-ID: <199809091527.JAA13391@sal.cs.utah.edu> In-Reply-To: <199809090938.CAA12739@hub.freebsd.org> from "Robert Swindells" at Sep 9, 98 02:38:00 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert, > > >If so, why a binary-only release? Is that your decision or would that > >result from the licensing restrictions Sun puts on your port? > > It just seemed safer not to be forced to release the source. It avoids > giving Transvirtual any legal problems if Sun felt that the port gave > away information about the internals of the JVM. > > I was considering it to be "our" port anyway. The source could get > added to the JDK CVS repository. > > >>From my knowledge of the history of Kaffe's licenses, this would > >>appear to be the kind of behavior that led Transvirtual to using > >>the (more restrictive) GPL in the first place. > > I was always intending to offer the source back to Transvirtual. > On one hand, you're saying you want to avoid legal trouble because the port might give away information about Sun's JVM internals. On the other hand, you're intending to offer the source back to Transvirtual. How would Transvirtual's legal problems be reduced if only they had access to sources that in your opinion might give away information about Sun's JVM? - Godmar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809091527.JAA13391>