> As a side note, to Les...Java isn't actually "open source". It has source
> that you can read, yes, but "open source" means anybody can change it, which
> isn't true for Java. For more information, see:
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
"Open Source" doesn't mean that anyone can use source code under any
auspices they conceive. To opensource.org, that's what it means, but thats
not what it means to me. You have to remember that opensource.org has
strong ties to the Free Software Foundation. That's not bad, per se, but it
doesn't mean commercially restrictive licenses (SCSL) are bad either.
With the SCSL, you may change, edit, modify, compile, even redistribute the
resulting binaries depending on certain terms (most of which usually
involves sending SUN the changes/modifications, and disallows commercial
distribution of the product).
For example, see section 2.1 subsection a) under "Research Use License":
http://wwws.sun.com/software/java2/license.html
If all I want to do is view the sourcecode and compile it so I can use it
(non-comercially) and internally, who cares if it can be modified and
redistrubited by anyone?
Yes, the SCSL is not "open" in that absolutely anyone can't do with it as
they please. But it is "open" in that I can download it, view it, compile
it, and use it non-commercially. That's plenty "open" enough for me. I
don't even want to make changes to it. I just want to use the newest
features that the JAXB developers have made without waiting for red tape to
clear behind the next release (which is what sparked this discussion
anyway).
Les