I think he makes a good case for himself in the article, though I wonder how much effort it really costs to maintain an already written port. However, he is qui

I think he makes a good case for himself in the article, though I wonder how much effort it really costs to maintain an already written port. However, he is quite mistaken about the possible side effects of Apple licensing the code under the GPL: > The company would want nothing less than an absolutely forensic code analysis to ensure there are no loopholes, stray imports or links, or anything else that a creative FSF lawyer could use to claim that Mac OS X links against the GPL’ed OpenJDK and must therefore itself be GPL’ed. That is not how the GPL works. The GPL doesn't apply to the copyright holder (owner) of the code. The GPL applies to all the people who get the code from the owner. The owner can do what every they want.