On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Andrew John Hughes
> 2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@...>:
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Andrew John Hughes
>> <gnu_andrew@...> wrote:
>>> 2008/9/13 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@...>:
>>>> 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.
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
>>> 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
and ask yourself if google would have based andriod on harmony unless