You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> on 2006/02/17 12:08:02 UTC
[classlib] policy file
why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib] policy file
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Actually, looking at it, it makes no sense to have this coming from
module/security anyway.
I'll revert to using the one from depends/files
geir
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I meant it's copyright / license block comment.
>>>
>>> Same reason every other files does.
>>
>> That is not a source code, BTW corresponding RI's files do not have
>> copyrights.
>
> We don't care - we put it on all resources. See our generated HTML
> pages, for example.
>
>>
>>> ...and why drl.policy? any objection to changing it back?
>>
>> I'm not sure it is legal to use 'java' unless it is explicitely
>> required by the spec.
>> 'java.security' is required by the spec.
>>
>> How about 'drl.policy'?
>
> s/drl/java/
>
> I'll sit by my mailbox waiting for the letter from Sun legal so no one
> else has to worry :)
>
> geir
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mikhail
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>>> java.security also does not have a license...
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think they have to have a license?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mikhail
>>>>
>>>> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
>>>>> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>>>>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [classlib] policy file
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I meant it's copyright / license block comment.
>>
>> Same reason every other files does.
>
> That is not a source code, BTW corresponding RI's files do not have copyrights.
We don't care - we put it on all resources. See our generated HTML
pages, for example.
>
>> ...and why drl.policy? any objection to changing it back?
>
> I'm not sure it is legal to use 'java' unless it is explicitely
> required by the spec.
> 'java.security' is required by the spec.
>
> How about 'drl.policy'?
s/drl/java/
I'll sit by my mailbox waiting for the letter from Sun legal so no one
else has to worry :)
geir
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>> java.security also does not have a license...
>>>
>>> Why do you think they have to have a license?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mikhail
>>>
>>> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
>>>> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>>>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>>>
>> --
>>
>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>
>
>
Re: [classlib] policy file
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I meant it's copyright / license block comment.
>>
>> Same reason every other files does.
>
> That is not a source code,
Sure it is
> BTW corresponding RI's files do not have copyrights.
>> ...and why drl.policy? any objection to changing it back?
>
> I'm not sure it is legal to use 'java' unless it is explicitely
> required by the spec.
what? like all those .java files?
> 'java.security' is required by the spec.
>
> How about 'drl.policy'?
No
Regards,
Tim
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>> java.security also does not have a license...
>>>
>>> Why do you think they have to have a license?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mikhail
>>>
>>> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
>>>> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>>>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>>>
>> --
>>
>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>
>
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib] policy file
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I meant it's copyright / license block comment.
>
> Same reason every other files does.
That is not a source code, BTW corresponding RI's files do not have copyrights.
>
> ...and why drl.policy? any objection to changing it back?
I'm not sure it is legal to use 'java' unless it is explicitely
required by the spec.
'java.security' is required by the spec.
How about 'drl.policy'?
Thanks,
Mikhail
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > java.security also does not have a license...
> >
> > Why do you think they have to have a license?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
> >> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> >>
> >
>
> --
>
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>
Re: [classlib] policy file
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
I actually have an objection to *that* name, so I will if you don't...
Tim Ellison wrote:
> I meant it's copyright / license block comment.
>
> Same reason every other files does.
>
> ...and why drl.policy? any objection to changing it back?
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> java.security also does not have a license...
>>
>> Why do you think they have to have a license?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mikhail
>>
>> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
>>> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>>
>
Re: [classlib] policy file
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
I meant it's copyright / license block comment.
Same reason every other files does.
...and why drl.policy? any objection to changing it back?
Regards,
Tim
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> java.security also does not have a license...
>
> Why do you think they have to have a license?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
>> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>
>
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib] policy file
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
We historically have add the Apache License to all of our files.
We should do this here for consistency, but it's not critical - I expect
our policies to change to eliminate this practice at some point in the
near future. If we do a release though before that policy change
happens, we should be sure to get it in.
Short answer, we should prollie get it in there.. :)
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> java.security also does not have a license...
>
> Why do you think they have to have a license?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
>> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>
>
>
Re: [classlib] policy file
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
java.security also does not have a license...
Why do you think they have to have a license?
Thanks,
Mikhail
On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
>
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>
Re: [classlib] policy file
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
It probably has been that way for weeks, since we switched to security2.
Easy fix...
Tim Ellison wrote:
> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from
> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ?
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>