Tony Dean wrote:
> 1) Sun owns the Java trademark. They have published the VM spec and
> the language spec. They permit rogue ports from the specs.
There is already an excellent "rogue port" in the Kaffe project,
although "cleanroom implementation" is a better term. Interestingly,
even the spec carries some scary language... check out paragraph 6 of
the copyright from the JVM spec, about the license to "practice this
specification":
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/vmspec/2nd-edition/html/Copyright.doc.html#997057
Nathan
>
> Nelson,
>
> There are a number of possible scenarios that your comments could
> blossom into.
>
> Nelson Minar wrote:
>
> >
> > There are deeper problems lurking underneath, though, having to do
> > with Sun's control of Java. Sun isn't interested in the ultimate
> > goals
> > of free software, and they're powerful enough to cause a lot of
> > trouble with Java. We play a dangerous game in the free software
> > world, using Java, hoping that we can trust Sun enough to not really
> >
> > screw people the way Microsoft has with their control of the Win32
> > API. The commercial world is playing the same game, too, and it's
> > the
> > root of so many of the schisms in the Java world.
>
> Here are some ideas:
>
> 1) Sun owns the Java trademark. They have published the VM spec and
> the language spec. They permit rogue ports from the specs.
>
> Idea: Maybe its time for another rogue port in open source form.
> This one should
> shoot for 1.3 from the git-go.
>
> 2) Another rogue port could be worked in under the Blackdown umbrella.
> I suspect that
> the Sun agreement prohibits the actual transmission of knowledge
> from the people who
> are the porters that have done so much for us so far.
>
> Idea: Couldn't the existing porters be instrumental in validating
> and ratifying a
> "Clean Room" rogue port of 1.3?
>
>
> 3) I used to set on a standards committee for telecom stuff. We were
> going to move
> our stuff into one of the standards bodies for standardization and
> I believe that
> occurred after I got a different job.
>
> Idea: There is no reason Sun has to be involved in the
> standardization of Java. Oops,
> I guess it would not be called Java it would be called something
> else but like ANSI C
> (XJ311 wasn't it?) once the standard is defined everyone will
> support the official
> standard. The product would have a note that says XK682 (or
> similar name) compliant.
>
> > That's why I'm glad to see a big player like IBM also enter into the
> >
> > Java/Linux fray. The current ports are bound by Sun's lciense just
> > like the rest, but IBM has enough muscle to push back if need be.
>
> 4) I think IBM understands that the fast growing Linux community is
> the perfect
> audience for their AIX products. After all Unix to Unix is far
> easier between
> the differences from one Unix to another versus the Unix to
> NT nightmare. When
> we (Linux users) need some heavy Iron those high end IBM RS6000/SP
> boxes rock
> and IBM wants the Linux community to think of them first.
>
> Idea: While IBM is trying to actually woo the Linux crowd Sun
> appears to be trying to
> tick us all off! Now who is more likely to sell big boxes to Linux
> users when we need them?
> IBM knows....
>
> --
> Tony Dean
> Linux: The choice of a GNU Generation!
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
