Gentoo Archives: gentoo-java

From: Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org>
To: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-java@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:01:33
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming by Robert Burrell Donkin
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 >> > > 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 PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 ( Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>