After a long battle with technology, thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com (Thomas Hallgren), an earthling, wrote:
> The JDK/JRE licensing in itself has never been a problem in any
> projects where I have been involved, nor any other Java project that
> I'm aware of. You just don't bundle the JRE, you assume that the
> customer has it installed.
Right, you have to "assume that the customer has it installed."
>> - Due to licensing complexities, it's WAY more complex to deploy
>> Java-based apps than C-based apps. The average Linux or BSD
>> distribution contains hundreds if not thousands of apps
>> deployed in C; doing the same for Java has proved more than
> Funny, I've been writing Java apps for the better part of 6 years
> now. I've *never* experienced any licensing complexities *what so
> ever*. Many thousand users use Java on Linux and FreeBSD and they
> are not violating any licenses.
Tell me how many Linux distributions come with Java(tm) and Java(tm)
applications installed by default. :-)
The answer is pretty clear; the licensing of Blackdown mandates that
installation of Java(tm) be done separately, which _severely_ limits
the incidence of this. I see, on Debian, a few dependancies on some
form of JDK/JRE; it's generally staying with Java 1.1 where there are
feasible if limited "free software" options...
Which means that systems cannot and do not include either Java(tm)
(or, as a result, Java(tm) applications). For them to do so would
indeed require violating Sun's licenses.
This doesn't prevent adding Java(tm) as an "aftermarket add-on." But
it is clearly that, an "aftermarket add-on." Java just isn't a "first
class citizen" that can be considered ubiquitous the way C and C++
The cigars in Los Angeles that were Duchamp-signed and then smoked.
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Hallgren||Date: 2004-11-15 06:29:25|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2004-11-15 02:42:02|
|Subject: Re: Spatial Relations DB Survey -- need volunteer.|