| 1 |
On 2013-01-16, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Afair icedtea, openjdk, jdk share a Lot of Code. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Isn't IcedTea OpenJDK, or at least the name of the bundle OpenJDK + |
| 6 |
build system? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Am 16.01.2013 15:18 schrieb "Michael Mol" <mikemol@×××××.com>: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Campbell <dlcampbell@×××.com> |
| 11 |
>> wrote: |
| 12 |
>> > On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: |
| 13 |
>> >> On Wednesday 16 January 2013 10:32:11 AM IST, Kevin Brandstatter wrote: |
| 14 |
>> >>> I'm curious as well about the potential exploitability of icedtea. I |
| 15 |
>> >>> would think that since the icedtea vm is not the same as the sun/oracle |
| 16 |
>> >>> one and so I don't think the code base is the same, which would mean an |
| 17 |
>> >>> exploit in the sun/oracle jvm would not necessarily affect icedtea. |
| 18 |
>> >>> However, I know very little on this matter and seeing as i think both |
| 19 |
>> >>> are open sourced i have no idea how much or if there is any code> overlap. |
| 20 |
>> >>> |
| 21 |
>> >> |
| 22 |
>> >> Oracle Java is open source? |
| 23 |
>> >> |
| 24 |
>> > |
| 25 |
>> > I was thinking the same thing. Last I knew, the VM is closed while the |
| 26 |
>> > language is pretty much open. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> IIRC, the VM spec is open, the implementation isn't. Further, the |
| 29 |
>> supporting libraries are open (as in you can see them). The biggest |
| 30 |
>> 'closed' aspect is the pricey (and terms-restricting) certification |
| 31 |
>> process to get a different implementation certified. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> But I might be woefully out of date. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Nuno Silva (aka njsg) |
| 37 |
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/ |
Archives