Anyone can make an alternate implementation so long as they do not call it Java and do not claim compatibility.
Ralph. On Jun 1, 2012, at 4:51 AM, morten hattesen <[email protected]> wrote: > One remaining issue on Java "openness" still exists, though. Oracle's > licensing policies of the TCK (ref Apache Harmony > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to_obtain_a_TCK_license_from_Sun > ) > > So, it is effectively impossible for anyone to make an alternate Java > implementation, as there is no way of measuring its compatibility, > which is what the TCK does. > > > On Jun 1, 10:15 am, "Fabrizio Giudici" <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Now that the trial, if I understand, is over (with the exception of some >> minor stuff), can we try to draw some conclusions? For instance: >> >> 1. The licensing model of Java doesn't have any "trap" and people are >> really free to use it >> 2. At this point, the argument of Java not having an "open spec" (see >> discussions about JDK 7 vs Java 7 vs C#) loses value. >> >> I wonder whether at this point Google could drop the ambiguity and >> officially say that Android is based on a "Java runtime". >> >> -- >> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager >> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." >> [email protected]http://tidalwave.it-http://fabriziogiudici.it > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
