Stuart Ballard wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Ouch. I don't need the class that badly. However... not adding any extra
> classes in java.*, even package private ones? What about
> java.lang.VMObject et al?
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.
None of us are Java licensee's. We did not sign a contract (I didn't even
have to hit a click wrap license to get the docs) with Sun saying what we
would and would not do with their spec. Copyright law does not permit Sun
to restrict the use to which you put the material.
Actually, I do believe that the ISO standards process allows the resulting
specs to be encumbered by intellectual property claims. (The MP3 encoding
standard is one example of that, I believe, where all possible
implementations are patented). The ISO standard may not get Sun's evil
lawyers off people's backs.
We should be compatible because compatibility is a good thing, not because
we are afraid of Sun's bogus license.
--
Aaron M. Renn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
