Skip to main content

Read only license?

3 replies [Last post]
Joined: 2003-06-10

Is this a joke? What's the point? Its just a slap in the face for open source JVMs.

Reply viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Joined: 2006-11-07

It is weird that it is not allowed even to compile the JCK. I want to do research and see the code-coverage of the JCK and I'm not allowed even compile the code...
funny license terms :)

Joined: 2004-06-30

Something wrong is going on with "open source" in general.

They claim they'll charge $50k per license. Fine. Charges who? Does it have anything to do with opensource then? Or is it only open source of free advertisement?

In another development, companies started rushing for Eclipse membership. What's the point, I wondered - pay $500K a year to be able to contribute? You can contribute without paying $500K, if you have something to contribute. No, it is not about contribution. It is all about control. They want to be in control.

Probably, the same is happening with JCK guys; but they probably want the fruits already.

Open source, right. Like in open trap.

Joined: 2004-05-05

Sun's marketing division loves to pretend their code is open source when it isn't, that's all. It's not rational, of course, but hey, we're talking about Sun here.

I guess their marketing division simply likes being caught in the act all the time. Noone now trusts Sun any more when they use the words 'open' and 'source' in the same sentence, so they nowdays get heavily bashed even for OSI certified licenses, like CDDL, because people expect Sun's marketing division to compulsively lie to them by default. The marketing division did an awesome amount of work to ruin the public image of a good company by repeatedly abusing the term 'open source' for clearly proprietary software. And obvious PR stunts like 'Read-only' licenses are not helping fix that either.

dalibor topic