On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 15:43, Johnny Hughes wrote:
That just doesn't make sense. while I understand this is the place we find ourselves, it doesn't make sense that one OSS platform cannot do a simple thing with another OSS platform.
Ah, if only Java were OSS.
Alan has pointed out ... and I will reiterate it, just in case anyone doesn't know.
Java is _NOT_ open source ... and it can not be redistribute with out a license from Sun. We can not distribute it via a free distro.
MP3 also requires a royalty payment for every player distributed, and therefore can not be distribute by CentOS.
While I personally am not happy about either of those situations, we (The CentOS Project) do follow the laws for distribution of software.
I thought somewhere back a few days in this thread it was stated that the problem was solved by adding a symlink in the right place. So, even though you can't include java, it might be possible to make it work correctly when someone does install their copy legally without having to guess where it landed and where the rest of the distribution expects it.
Oh criminy. Is this THAT big of a deal. Please, all of you whining about this, go back to Windows. Linux is too hard for you if you can't figure out how to setup a Yum repository and install this stuff yourself. It's so easy now a child could do it.
I remember trying to configure X back in the Red Hat 5 days. It was a big deal to get a Window manager, period. And now we're complaining because Java and MP3 functionality isn't installed out of the box even though it's illegal? Huh?
I prefer to install Java myself anyway. I can handle setting up the pathing and I know where it's located. Also lets me put all java stuff (eclipse, Tomcat, etc.) in one place. I REALLY don't see what the big deal is.
Preston