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 14:26:30
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 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>> 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.
> - 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>