Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:27:49 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Joe Yandle <joe@wlcg.com> Cc: Anthony Kimball <alk@pobox.com>, nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: freebsd thread-question Message-ID: <199911181927.MAA16545@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.991118133154.3539A-100000@sith.wlcg.com> References: <14388.17489.519655.157704@avalon.east> <Pine.LNX.3.96.991118133154.3539A-100000@sith.wlcg.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Personally, I would be overjoyed by a Lesstif version. > > I hadn't thought about that. Since Lesstif is LGPL, you could legally > distribute it dynamically linked. Wasn't it the static linking of Motif > that's holding things up now? I have 'legal' issues with LessTif. I'm concerned about the legality of the LessTif source code (how it was obtained), and I don't want to involve SRI, myself, or FreeBSD in any potential problems. Call me paranoid, but I'm just not willing to distribute a binary version linked against Lesstif, or distribute with a Lesstif library. Plus the fact that the Lesstif version works very poorly and requiere hacks to the JDK sources that I'm no longer aware of makes it a non-choice in my mind. :( Nate 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?199911181927.MAA16545>