Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming

[Andrew John Hughes]

2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Andrew John Hughes
> <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org> wrote:
>> 2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>:
>>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Andrew John Hughes
>>> <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org> wrote:
>>>> 2008/9/13 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> AIUI and IMNSHO *NO* local build from source qualifies. gentoo
>>>>> *SHOULD* *NOT* expose users to risk by using trademarks etc for *ANY*
>>>>> source build even from the sun tree.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe that's being a bit over cautious,
>>>
>>> i agree that sun is unlikely to sue any users over java ATM but
>>> trademarks must be defended or cease to exist. sooner or later sun
>>> will have to either lose the java trademark or act against
>>> unauthorised users.
>>>
>>
>> I wasn't talking about the Java trademark, I was talking about the OpenJDK
>> trademark.  Use of the Java trademark requires passing the
>> certification process,
>> and this isn't possible for a source build.  Only binaries can pass
>> the TCK and thus
>> be certified.
>
> yes
>
> thanks for clarifying
>
>>>> but the problem generally is
>>>> Sun thought of this with binary distribution in mind, not source.
>>>
>>> the JCP is set up to manage binaries, not source. IMO this is the
>>> fatal flaw in this system. (i'll avoid going OT by repeating the
>>> argument again here.)
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the JCP still needs work, being centered around proprietary
>> binary distribution for the most part.
>
> the binary distributions only rule is a consequence of the closed TCK.
> the TCK is closed to ensure a revenue stream for the spec leader.
>
> i'll be interested to see whether the JCP survives. sun broke the
> basic premise over the harmony TCK (all participants whether open
> source or not hold contracts with sun who acts as an independent
> judge). given that most open source projects can't afford to sue sun,
> the legal framework needs extensive revision. it would be cleaner for
> the JCP to issue a license covering any works that pass an open source
> TCK for everything except branding rights including the mutual patent
> grants. branding rights are only really required for commercial binary
> implementations so an additional secret TCK and payment could be
> required to unlock those.
>
>>>> As with any legal agreement, the best solution is to consult a lawyer.
>>>> I'm not one.
>>>
>>> does gentoo have a agreement with sun?
>>> if so, is it available on line?
>>> if not, what agreement is being relyed on?
>>>
>>
>> Not as far as I know, but other than naming and trademarks, OpenJDK is just
>> like any other FOSS project.
>
> trademarks are the important point (bit like firefox)
>
>>>>> BTW i'm on AMD64 which has very poor support from the sun java
>>>>> codebase. are there any plans to add support for the harmony VM?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What 'poor support'? IcedTea6 works fine for me here on amd64.
>>>
>>> eclipse and sun don't play well. however, i haven't tried switching to
>>> the iced tea build on gentoo so maybe i'll give that a try next time.
>>>
>>>> Feel free to package Harmony, but I don't see how that will solve your problems,
>>>
>>> harmony runs eclipse fine. every couple of months when gentoo changes
>>> something, i have to devote a couple of hours fixing stuff so that
>>> eclipse works or else switch to harmony until everything's fixed.
>>>
>>
>> That's interesting.  I don't know anything about the proprietary Sun
>> builds on amd64, I've
>> never used them.  But I also don't run Eclipse.  Have you filled
>> appropriate bugs? Certainly try IcedTea and, if you get failures, report them to our bug
>> database at
>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla.
>
> cool
>
>>>> given it doesn't yet have a complete implementation of even 1.5.
>>>
>>> if sun had honoured it's agreement to allow access to the TCK by open
>>> source projects,  then harmony (and the free JVMs) would have had
>>> certified 1.5 implementations a year ago and (most likely) 1.6 ones as
>>> well by now. this is a political issue, not a code one.
>>>
>>
>> I seriously doubt that, given it took OpenJDK a year to pass the 1.6
>> TCK, despite
>> being based on a codebase, the majority of which has passed as part of
>> the proprietary work.
>
> you'd be surprised :-)
>
> at least one major corporation has taken a derived work based on
> harmony codebase through the TCK
>

Is this the TreeMap? If so, it's one class which they modified heavily
themselves
so that it worked as part of 1.6.

> and ask yourself if google would have based andriod on harmony unless
> it worked...
>

I didn't say it didn't work, I said it wasnt' likely to pass the TCK
without a lot of work.
You could of course link the Harmony class library up to HotSpot,
apply for the OpenJDK6 TCK
to certify that combination and prove me wrong.

> - robert
>
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8