OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

zeppelin · 2005-03-29 10:10:03

one can read http://software.newsforge.com/software/ … tml?tid=93
and see that "good" distros as Ubuntu and Debian will cut down OpenOffice parts that depend to java in order to ship FLOSS. Now I write this to ask why Arch plans to do on the issue.

Hopefully gcj will be ready soon
for those that think that Java is free plz read: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
but anyways I think that many guys here don't have to read that link at all cause they already know the problems. In fact Judd called it 'Arch Linux' because 'Arch GNU/Linux' was too large?

that's all folks
have fun and not flames

LB06 · 2005-03-29 18:16:01

Maybe provide two flavors, just like amarok (amarok and amarok-mysqlfree).

dp · 2005-03-29 20:41:14

LB06 wrote:

Maybe provide two flavors, just like amarok (amarok and amarok-mysqlfree).

note that amarok is not going to be this way forever - i will have a amarok-mysqlplugin as soon as it is available instead ;-)

additional reason not to provide 2 oo2 versions: it's a very big package!

cactus · 2005-03-29 20:43:24

well, I think everyone and their brother are waiting to see if redhat can pull off compiling OO2 with gcj.

I would like to take this moment to thank the folks at redhat for all the work they have done in the past, and continue to do, for the Linux community.
*tips his non-fedora-type hat*

sudman1 · 2005-03-30 03:09:45

I think it's a whole lot of fuss over nothing. Pacman serves up the official Sun Java JRE and SDK so it doesn't really conflict with Arch's philosophy.

Debian's philosophy is a different story. I see Debian and other FOSS distros as the Omish sect of the Linux community. Sure they're purists, but only because they're afraid of what they don't understand.

Let coders code what they want how they want - that's the real freedom. So the compiler/interpreter is not open source - big deal - thier code IS. If you don't like that dependency, read their source and rewrite it in the language you like.

eerok · 2005-03-30 04:34:53

^^ I pretty much agree with sudman1 -- "freedom" is a big, fuzzy term, and as a pragmatist, I just want things to work.

When politics confilict with day-to-day life, I choose ... life.

I like GNU, I use GNU, and if/when GNU makes their dream possible, well, I won't mind that at all. I applaud their efforts. I ascribe to their ideals. But at the end of the day, like I said, I just want things to work.

Snowman · 2005-03-30 05:33:56

The problem is not with Java but with SUN's Java. According to the licence, SUN's java can't be redistributed. Technically, Arch's java package are not legal. The PKGBUILDs don't take the source from SUN's website but from another one. That is why RedHat is trying to use GNU's java because it is GPL. Then it would be possible to redistribute OO.

cactus · 2005-03-30 06:37:31

and since the next version of OO uses things specific to SUN's version of java, it will not work with Kaffe, IBM java, etc..
(It is probably java5 stuff)

Dusty · 2005-03-30 15:34:31

Snowman wrote:

According to the licence, SUN's java can't be redistributed. Technically, Arch's java package are not legal.

Could you quote the section of the license that says that? I've discussed this several times, I've read and reread the license, and I'm still confused on the issue. Of course, maybe if I was a lawyer the damn thing would make more sense.

Dusty

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-03-30 15:41:52

Omg.

As long as it is free enough to be usable, we shall use it. I don't like the religious way of debian, and don't want arch to develop into that direction!

dp · 2005-03-30 15:45:07

Pink Chick wrote:

Omg.
As long as it is free enough to be usable, we shall use it. I don't like the religious way of debian, and don't want arch to develop into that direction!

i second that!

miqorz · 2005-03-30 16:35:25

Did you guys know debian is considering ditching enlightenment from the main repo because it includes a "non-free" FONT?

Haha!

Snowman · 2005-03-30 16:55:45

Dusty wrote:

Snowman wrote:
According to the licence, SUN's java can't be redistributed. Technically, Arch's java package are not legal.
Could you quote the section of the license that says that? I've discussed this several times, I've read and reread the license, and I'm still confused on the issue. Of course, maybe if I was a lawyer the damn thing would make more sense.
Dusty

I just read the licence ( http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/jdk-1_5_0_02-license.txt ) and I am not too sure about that anymore :? . Maybe it was just an assumption due to the fact that in Debian and in Gentoo, you need to download the sources/binaries manually. There is also that part that said that you can't modify it. Maybe the licence changed or I might be wrong.

Dusty · 2005-03-30 17:28:21

it was really weird... everybody thinks that, and all the distros seem to think its not right to redistribute java.... but like I said, Sarah31, Jason, and I have all looked at it and it seems like you can. The binaries are downloaded from planetMirror, not directly from sun, so *they* must think its redistribuable (sp?).

I don't think the license has changed. The 1.5-beta licenses *were* different, but the 1.4 and 1.5 final licenses look the same.

Dusty

Snowman · 2005-03-30 17:54:13

Maybe the problem is that they cannot be downloaded automatically. If you want to download them from Sun's web site, you must click OK to agree to the license before being able to download them. Instead of using a mirror, the other distros ask the user to download it manually. I tried with wget but it didn't work.

cactus · 2005-03-30 20:04:19

the license link you provided is just for the binary, pre-compiled versions provided by sun. the source that you compile yourself has a different set of licenses..
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/source_license.html

namely http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/scsl_5.0-license.txt

Arch Linux

#1 2005-03-29 10:10:03

OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#2 2005-03-29 18:16:01

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#3 2005-03-29 20:41:14

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#4 2005-03-29 20:43:24

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#5 2005-03-30 03:09:45

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#6 2005-03-30 04:34:53

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#7 2005-03-30 05:33:56

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#8 2005-03-30 06:37:31

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#9 2005-03-30 15:34:31

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#10 2005-03-30 15:41:52

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#11 2005-03-30 15:45:07

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#12 2005-03-30 16:35:25

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#13 2005-03-30 16:55:45

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#14 2005-03-30 17:28:21

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#15 2005-03-30 17:54:13

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

#16 2005-03-30 20:04:19

Re: OpenOffice.org 2 is more non-free than OOo1.

Board footer