1 |
2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>: |
2 |
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Andrew John Hughes |
3 |
> <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
4 |
>> 2008/9/13 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> <snip> |
7 |
> |
8 |
>>> AIUI and IMNSHO *NO* local build from source qualifies. gentoo |
9 |
>>> *SHOULD* *NOT* expose users to risk by using trademarks etc for *ANY* |
10 |
>>> source build even from the sun tree. |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> Maybe that's being a bit over cautious, |
14 |
> |
15 |
> i agree that sun is unlikely to sue any users over java ATM but |
16 |
> trademarks must be defended or cease to exist. sooner or later sun |
17 |
> will have to either lose the java trademark or act against |
18 |
> unauthorised users. |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
I wasn't talking about the Java trademark, I was talking about the OpenJDK |
22 |
trademark. Use of the Java trademark requires passing the |
23 |
certification process, |
24 |
and this isn't possible for a source build. Only binaries can pass |
25 |
the TCK and thus |
26 |
be certified. |
27 |
|
28 |
>> but the problem generally is |
29 |
>> Sun thought of this with binary distribution in mind, not source. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> the JCP is set up to manage binaries, not source. IMO this is the |
32 |
> fatal flaw in this system. (i'll avoid going OT by repeating the |
33 |
> argument again here.) |
34 |
> |
35 |
|
36 |
Yes, the JCP still needs work, being centered around proprietary |
37 |
binary distribution for the most part. |
38 |
|
39 |
>> As with any legal agreement, the best solution is to consult a lawyer. |
40 |
>> I'm not one. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> does gentoo have a agreement with sun? |
43 |
> if so, is it available on line? |
44 |
> if not, what agreement is being relyed on? |
45 |
> |
46 |
|
47 |
Not as far as I know, but other than naming and trademarks, OpenJDK is just |
48 |
like any other FOSS project. |
49 |
|
50 |
>>> BTW i'm on AMD64 which has very poor support from the sun java |
51 |
>>> codebase. are there any plans to add support for the harmony VM? |
52 |
>>> |
53 |
>> |
54 |
>> What 'poor support'? IcedTea6 works fine for me here on amd64. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> eclipse and sun don't play well. however, i haven't tried switching to |
57 |
> the iced tea build on gentoo so maybe i'll give that a try next time. |
58 |
> |
59 |
>> Feel free to package Harmony, but I don't see how that will solve your problems, |
60 |
> |
61 |
> harmony runs eclipse fine. every couple of months when gentoo changes |
62 |
> something, i have to devote a couple of hours fixing stuff so that |
63 |
> eclipse works or else switch to harmony until everything's fixed. |
64 |
> |
65 |
|
66 |
That's interesting. I don't know anything about the proprietary Sun |
67 |
builds on amd64, I've |
68 |
never used them. But I also don't run Eclipse. Have you filled |
69 |
appropriate bugs? |
70 |
Certainly try IcedTea and, if you get failures, report them to our bug |
71 |
database at |
72 |
http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla. |
73 |
|
74 |
>> given it doesn't yet have a complete implementation of even 1.5. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> if sun had honoured it's agreement to allow access to the TCK by open |
77 |
> source projects, then harmony (and the free JVMs) would have had |
78 |
> certified 1.5 implementations a year ago and (most likely) 1.6 ones as |
79 |
> well by now. this is a political issue, not a code one. |
80 |
> |
81 |
|
82 |
I seriously doubt that, given it took OpenJDK a year to pass the 1.6 |
83 |
TCK, despite |
84 |
being based on a codebase, the majority of which has passed as part of |
85 |
the proprietary work. |
86 |
|
87 |
> - robert |
88 |
> |
89 |
> |
90 |
|
91 |
|
92 |
|
93 |
-- |
94 |
Andrew :-) |
95 |
|
96 |
Support Free Java! |
97 |
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK |
98 |
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath |
99 |
http://openjdk.java.net |
100 |
|
101 |
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) |
102 |
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 |