"Aaron M. Renn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe the only restriction is that you should not add _public_
> classes to the java.* namespace. Sun includes numerous undocumented
> package protected classes in their java.* packages. We can do the
> same.
Sun's license is very clear is its wording. You cannot add any
classes or methods to the java.* namespace -- they never restrict this
requirement to "public" classes or methods.
Having said all that, we should be allowed to add non-public classes
to the java.* namespace.
> None of us are Java licensee's.
Sun doesn't think so. Without this license, it's impossible for one
to practice the Java spec -- or so Sun's lawyers believe.
> We did not sign a contract
That doesn't matter (according to Sun). :)
> Actually, I do believe that the ISO standards process allows the
> resulting specs to be encumbered by intellectual property claims.
>From what I've read of Sun's ISO submissions, it seems as though they
will be doing away with their current "license" for clean room
implementations.
But, yes, you are correct in that the ISO standards process does allow
the resulting spec to be encumbered by IP claims.
> We should be compatible because compatibility is a good thing, not
> because we are afraid of Sun's bogus license.
Ditto. But with an in-between class, are we still compatible?
--
Paul Fisher * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
