Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not overriding a superclass method when the spec says it is
> overridden
Should be OK.
> Overriding a superclass method (for efficiency) when the spec says
> it is not overridden?
Should be OK.
> Adding a package-private superclass in between a class and its
> specced superclass (for cases where code can be reused)?
This probably is OK, as long as the in-between class is _not_ in the
java.* namespace.
The reason I say this is because Sun says that we must implement the
specification without adding "any additional packages, classes or
methods to the java.* packages". Of course modifying the inheritance
tree could also be considered "supersetting or subsetting" which is
also disallowed by Sun.
Sun seems to feel that the Java spec is part of their "Intellectual
Property", and thus they can "control" the end product of any
clean-room implementation. This harks back to the "look-and-feel"
interface copyright -- they're pushing it to even further limits with
the license on JINI. (which is truly insane)
There are tons more restrictions on our end product, according to
Sun's interpretation of copyright law, if you read the opening license
which is on page 1 of any of the Java specifications (JLS, VM, etc).
For instance, Sun says that we have to pass the JCK (java
compatibility kit) if one is ever made publicly available, and that we
can only distribute clean-room implementations that conform to the
latest version of the Java API.
All this crap should go away with the ISO spec. Until then, it's a
good sign that Sun hasn't tried to enforce this particular license.
The Kaffe people have had minor dealings with Sun regarding it.
I'd prefer not to bring this whole issue to the foreground, but if you
need that in-between class to be in the Java namespace, I'll ask RMS
about it. If he says to go ahead and do it (which is my guess), and
then if Sun complains, we can always modify the code, or at worst, the
FSF might get a chance to settle the "look-and-feel" copyright issues.
Did I ever mention that I'm glad the FSF holds the copyright on GNU
Classpath? :)
--
Paul Fisher * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
