On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 15:43, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>> That just doesn't make sense. while I understand this is the place we
>>>> find ourselves, it doesn't make sense that one OSS platform cannot do a
>>>> simple thing with another OSS platform.
>>>
>>> Ah, if only Java were OSS.
>>
>> Alan has pointed out ... and I will reiterate it, just in case anyone
>> doesn't know.
>>
>> Java is _NOT_ open source ... and it can not be redistribute with out a
>> license from Sun. We can not distribute it via a free distro.
>>
>> MP3 also requires a royalty payment for every player distributed, and
>> therefore can not be distribute by CentOS.
>>
>> While I personally am not happy about either of those situations, we
>> (The CentOS Project) do follow the laws for distribution of software.
>
> I thought somewhere back a few days in this thread it was stated that
> the problem was solved by adding a symlink in the right place. So,
> even though you can't include java, it might be possible to make
> it work correctly when someone does install their copy legally
> without having to guess where it landed and where the rest of the
> distribution expects it.
Oh criminy. Is this THAT big of a deal. Please, all of you whining about
this, go back to Windows. Linux is too hard for you if you can't figure
out how to setup a Yum repository and install this stuff yourself. It's so
easy now a child could do it.
I remember trying to configure X back in the Red Hat 5 days. It was a big
deal to get a Window manager, period. And now we're complaining because
Java and MP3 functionality isn't installed out of the box even though it's
illegal? Huh?
I prefer to install Java myself anyway. I can handle setting up the
pathing and I know where it's located. Also lets me put all java stuff
(eclipse, Tomcat, etc.) in one place. I REALLY don't see what the big deal
is.
Preston
