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