[CentOS-devel] rhwas 5 work?

Sun Mar 30 00:58:36 UTC 2008
John Summerfield <debian at herakles.homelinux.org>

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> John Summerfield wrote:
>> William L. Maltby wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 20:29 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>>> John Summerfield wrote:
>>>>> Karanbir
>>>>> I find you very difficult to deal with, and I don't want that. Can we
>>>>> try to keep things calm?
>>>> I am always calm :D
>>>>> I have no standing with the CentOS project, and I don't wish to 
>>>>> become a
>>>>> developer. I know myself well enough to understand that it's not
>>>>> something I do well, even though a resume of my experience might 
>>>>> suggest
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>> Well, the whole point to CentOS is that anyone and everyone should be
>>>> able to help along. Dont need a tag / title..
>>> And a good part of that is contributing ideas, pointers, support to
>>> others, etc. IMO. Not everyone has time or inclination to contribute in
>>> ways that the project might like.
>>> And that fits within the spirit of open source, no?
>> Thanks Bill.
>> In this particular case, Johnny more than anyone else speaks for 
>> CentOS, and I probably least of all.
>> CentOS has a problem with the Sun licence. On checking, it didn't seem 
>> so bad. Okay, so it maybe still isn't good enough. Perhaps one of the 
>> leaders ought tell Sun; in view of its decision to open-source Java, 
>> maybe Sun will move a little more. I don't think IBM will argue 
>> against more freedom, it's been taking shots at Sun over the matter 
>> for years.
>> I'm the last person who should be negotiating on CentOS's behalf, 
>> _this_ has to be done by an acknowledged leader, whether it's Johnny, 
>> Karanbir or someone else. Someone with a sound knowledge of the 
>> issues, someone Sun will see as someone representing the project.
>> If the licence issue is resolved satisfactorily, _then_ there will be 
>> some work to do, and maybe someone with needs in that area will step up.
> John,
> Actually ... Sun DID do something about the license, they changed it 
> completely for new versions of Java to GPL :D

And that's better than I expected.
These folk can probably help with legal advice:

I've just had a quick look at the licence for jdk 1.5.0 which I have on 
Scientific Linux 5, and two points look to me problematic
1. Indemnity. SFLC might have an opinion about that
2. ... software intended to replace any component(s) .... Sounds like a 
debating point to me, but IANAL. SFLC has some though.

> The issue is, that the versions of Java that is GPL is 1.6.0 and newer 
> ... and that CentOS-5 uses 1.4.2 level things.
> The problem we have is with distributing the 1.4.2 version ... which Sun 
> really can't change more than they have (or at least they seem unwilling 
> to do so).
> The GPL'ed version, 1.6.0, I am trying to get working on CentOS-5 in a 
> sane way right now.
> If we can make that work ... AND IF it will build the required java bits 
> ... AND AGAIN IF we can make that work with the other gcj java bits 
> already throughout CentOS, then we will be in business.
> That is really the issue.

Does Jikes compile it satisfactorily?



-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice

You cannot reply off-list:-)