| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Andrew John Hughes |
| 2 |
<gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> 2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>: |
| 4 |
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Andrew John Hughes |
| 5 |
>> <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> 2008/9/13 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> <snip> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>>>> AIUI and IMNSHO *NO* local build from source qualifies. gentoo |
| 11 |
>>>> *SHOULD* *NOT* expose users to risk by using trademarks etc for *ANY* |
| 12 |
>>>> source build even from the sun tree. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> Maybe that's being a bit over cautious, |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> i agree that sun is unlikely to sue any users over java ATM but |
| 18 |
>> trademarks must be defended or cease to exist. sooner or later sun |
| 19 |
>> will have to either lose the java trademark or act against |
| 20 |
>> unauthorised users. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I wasn't talking about the Java trademark, I was talking about the OpenJDK |
| 24 |
> trademark. Use of the Java trademark requires passing the |
| 25 |
> certification process, |
| 26 |
> and this isn't possible for a source build. Only binaries can pass |
| 27 |
> the TCK and thus |
| 28 |
> be certified. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
yes |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
thanks for clarifying |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
>>> but the problem generally is |
| 35 |
>>> Sun thought of this with binary distribution in mind, not source. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> the JCP is set up to manage binaries, not source. IMO this is the |
| 38 |
>> fatal flaw in this system. (i'll avoid going OT by repeating the |
| 39 |
>> argument again here.) |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Yes, the JCP still needs work, being centered around proprietary |
| 43 |
> binary distribution for the most part. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
the binary distributions only rule is a consequence of the closed TCK. |
| 46 |
the TCK is closed to ensure a revenue stream for the spec leader. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
i'll be interested to see whether the JCP survives. sun broke the |
| 49 |
basic premise over the harmony TCK (all participants whether open |
| 50 |
source or not hold contracts with sun who acts as an independent |
| 51 |
judge). given that most open source projects can't afford to sue sun, |
| 52 |
the legal framework needs extensive revision. it would be cleaner for |
| 53 |
the JCP to issue a license covering any works that pass an open source |
| 54 |
TCK for everything except branding rights including the mutual patent |
| 55 |
grants. branding rights are only really required for commercial binary |
| 56 |
implementations so an additional secret TCK and payment could be |
| 57 |
required to unlock those. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
>>> As with any legal agreement, the best solution is to consult a lawyer. |
| 60 |
>>> I'm not one. |
| 61 |
>> |
| 62 |
>> does gentoo have a agreement with sun? |
| 63 |
>> if so, is it available on line? |
| 64 |
>> if not, what agreement is being relyed on? |
| 65 |
>> |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> Not as far as I know, but other than naming and trademarks, OpenJDK is just |
| 68 |
> like any other FOSS project. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
trademarks are the important point (bit like firefox) |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
>>>> BTW i'm on AMD64 which has very poor support from the sun java |
| 73 |
>>>> codebase. are there any plans to add support for the harmony VM? |
| 74 |
>>>> |
| 75 |
>>> |
| 76 |
>>> What 'poor support'? IcedTea6 works fine for me here on amd64. |
| 77 |
>> |
| 78 |
>> eclipse and sun don't play well. however, i haven't tried switching to |
| 79 |
>> the iced tea build on gentoo so maybe i'll give that a try next time. |
| 80 |
>> |
| 81 |
>>> Feel free to package Harmony, but I don't see how that will solve your problems, |
| 82 |
>> |
| 83 |
>> harmony runs eclipse fine. every couple of months when gentoo changes |
| 84 |
>> something, i have to devote a couple of hours fixing stuff so that |
| 85 |
>> eclipse works or else switch to harmony until everything's fixed. |
| 86 |
>> |
| 87 |
> |
| 88 |
> That's interesting. I don't know anything about the proprietary Sun |
| 89 |
> builds on amd64, I've |
| 90 |
> never used them. But I also don't run Eclipse. Have you filled |
| 91 |
> appropriate bugs? Certainly try IcedTea and, if you get failures, report them to our bug |
| 92 |
> database at |
| 93 |
> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla. |
| 94 |
|
| 95 |
cool |
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
>>> given it doesn't yet have a complete implementation of even 1.5. |
| 98 |
>> |
| 99 |
>> if sun had honoured it's agreement to allow access to the TCK by open |
| 100 |
>> source projects, then harmony (and the free JVMs) would have had |
| 101 |
>> certified 1.5 implementations a year ago and (most likely) 1.6 ones as |
| 102 |
>> well by now. this is a political issue, not a code one. |
| 103 |
>> |
| 104 |
> |
| 105 |
> I seriously doubt that, given it took OpenJDK a year to pass the 1.6 |
| 106 |
> TCK, despite |
| 107 |
> being based on a codebase, the majority of which has passed as part of |
| 108 |
> the proprietary work. |
| 109 |
|
| 110 |
you'd be surprised :-) |
| 111 |
|
| 112 |
at least one major corporation has taken a derived work based on |
| 113 |
harmony codebase through the TCK |
| 114 |
|
| 115 |
and ask yourself if google would have based andriod on harmony unless |
| 116 |
it worked... |
| 117 |
|
| 118 |
- robert |
Archives