User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

I was missing one

I was missing one

Posted Oct 26, 2012 22:31 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
In reply to: I was missing one by man_ls
Parent article: Haley: We're doing an ARM64 OpenJDK port!

I guess you could say Java still has relevance for non-free uses of Free Software. But if its main value is for non-free uses, it seems as if those users ought to arrange to pay for maintaining and porting it. That won't happen without somebody experiencing pain first, so maybe it would be better to wait for some.

On the other hand, I'm betting that when the first AArgh64 chips come out, if the code doesn't run right, the chips will be considered wrong, and they'll change the spec to match the code. That seems about equally likely to be good as bad. Probably the people doing the code generator should get in touch with any malcontents from the Aargh64 design team and see which of its choices ought to be overturned that way.

I do like that in the Dalvik execution model, your program must be prepared to be killed off at any moment, and to then jump up, Inspector Clouseau style, if anybody happens to look.


(Log in to post comments)

I was missing one

Posted Oct 27, 2012 10:45 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

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.

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.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds