| From: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
| Date: | 2006-07-13 05:28:33 |
| Message-ID: | 44B5DA01.8060508@tada.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Well, assume that FSF indeed did remove the exception. It would take
>> me 30 minutes or so to create a substitute BSD licensed dummy JNI
>> library with associated headers that would allow PL/Java to be built
>> without any external modules at all. It's then completely up to the
>> user what he/she wants to slot in as a replacement.
>
> Do we want to do that? I mean (and I am not saying it is, I am asking)
> is that a bit grey? I would prefer it be black and white.
>
The JNI API is an open standard so I have every right to create a BSD
licensed dummy for it. The user may choose a JVM from IBM, Sun, BEA, or
other (like GCJ) to run. That's the essence of having a standardized
API. What can possibly be 'grey' about that?
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-07-13 05:35:11 | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-07-13 05:22:40 | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |