After a long battle with technology, thhal@mailblocks.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
>> troublesome.
> 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++
are.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','linuxfinances.info').
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/languages.html
The cigars in Los Angeles that were Duchamp-signed and then smoked.
