| |||||||||||||
I was missing oneI was missing onePosted Oct 27, 2012 10:45 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: I was missing one by ncm Parent article: Haley: We're doing an ARM64 OpenJDK port! IME Java is mostly relevant for in-house development, which is neither here nor there -- it cannot be considered "non-free" since it is not published, only run internally. Even the FSF allows to run GPL code internally without publishing source code. I suppose that, if the JVM implementors have half a brain, they will just publish a preliminary version of the code pending a real processor; the JVM should get updated then and everyone will be happy. If that is not the case, well, you cannot blame the Java language for that.
(Log in to post comments)
I was missing one Posted Nov 9, 2012 3:08 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> it cannot be considered "non-free" since it is not published, only run internally
Being free software has nothing to do with being published. A program is free software if its users have permission to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. That is probably not the case for internal-use applications, so they're not free software.
I was missing one Posted Nov 9, 2012 11:13 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
When a software is run internally in an enterprise (especially if it is run for the enterprise's purposes), its user is the enterprise, not each individual users... the enterprise can modify it, but it does not have the obligation to send the source code to each employee, and it can put rules in place to prevent that.
I was missing one Posted Nov 9, 2012 22:20 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> When a software is run internally in an enterprise (especially if it is run for the enterprise's purposes), its user is the enterprise, not each individual user
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|||||||||||||