All this FUD, uncertainty and lack of clarity just adds to my goal of
dropping WO for Cayenne/Click. Even when all the licensing dust has settled
for WO531, what happens on the next WO release. And the one after that?
Sorry, but if Apple are painting me into a corner, I'm getting out. The open
source alternatives are now good enough for me and my customers. YMMV...
On 16/11/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> I guess a bigger negative point in the discussion is this - it is
> cheaper and easier to buy Macs for your developers than to argue with
> Apple in court. If your product/service revenues do not justify Mac
> purchase, than litigation is probably not what you want either :-/
>
> Hmm... I never resorted to anti-WO FUD to promote Cayenne, but now it
> looks like there is no FUD in telling people to switch.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2005, at 5:07 PM, David Teran wrote:
>
>
> >> If this bothers you, buy a Mac Mini, install WO and expose the
> >> jars via Samba to your Windows machine :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that would be a good idea, at least this is what apple likes
> > you to do ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> But I agree - it is ridiculous that programmers have to go into
> >> such trouble to interpret the stupid license.
> >>
> >> "EOF references" in source code are definitely not controlled by
> >> the Apple license (c'mon - do you seriously think that the day you
> >> learned about NSArray, you soul belongs to Steve Jobs). Whether
> >> *compiling* against WO jars is allowed under deployment license
> >> (using javac and Eclipse) - that's not 100% clear, but I'd say it is.
> >>
> >> Say I write a super dynamic WO application where a user enters WO
> >> template code in runtime, typing it in a web form for later
> >> rendering as a WO component... Or another WO app with some
> >> embedded scripting language with expressions compiled in runtime
> >> against WO jars. With modern Java, compilation is a de-facto part
> >> of deployment (IIRC in Java 1.6 there will be public compiler API
> >> available in runtime).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Well, i think the intention is pretty clear to all of us:
> > development only on mac os x, deployment free (and afaik also -for-
> > free). While the definition of development and deployment is quite
> > flexible i still think: its clear what development is and its clear
> > what deployment is. A hyperdynamic WOApp which compiles classes at
> > runtime from text entered in a WOText field and such things, at
> > least clear to me: deployment. A person which sits in front of a
> > computer running linux or windows, hitting the keyboard and
> > triggering eclipse to do something, with the help of different
> > plugIns like WOLIps, at least clear to meh: development.
> >
> > But its up to apple to specify what development is and what not,
> > but only if they care about this. I am not sure if they really care
> > and at least for me its not important: i would -never never never-
> > develop on linux or windows so i am happy.
> >
> > my additional 2ct.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Nov 16 2005 - 10:22:43 EST