>=20 > Personally, I think that IBM would almost immediately fork it (if the > license permitted) and that would be the beginning of the end of Java. >
That=B9s crazy talk. While IBM is definitely way evil (don't forget, Microsoft learned all their dirty tricks from IBM and IBM has the most evil software patents on probably everything down to if statements -- in fact they may have the patent to evil itself ;-) Hi greg) and loves to fork open source projects and make them proprietary while claiming to be a friend, they already have their own Java. An open source Java does not have to allow you to call forks Java if they are not in fact compatible with Java. In fact, I'm using the VM spec right now to goof around with my own VM written in C (as a refresher for fun) and I could release it open source all I like. To be truly open source they have to allow independent open source implementations from their code which they will open. They have to allow interim "not-java" releases of the code (because to be open you have to be able to get the code before we're done with it!). To be truly open (which I doubt they will)... They have to open the process for defining Java. This doesn't mean they have to allow me to "embrace and extend" java ala Microsoft. They aren't "open sourcing" their trademark. Fork JBoss and call it JBoss and see how many seconds before we sue you. Fork JBoss and call it MyEJ and don't change the license from LGPL and there is nothing we can do. Such can be done with Java. -Andy =20 > I think that's why IBM wants it open-sourced - so that they can fork it, = on > the way to a proprietary implementation. >=20 > That's what they did to Apache Axis. >=20 >=20 >> OTOH, there are already >> FOSS Java implementations, >> so if Sun opens the source >> to the reference implementation, >> maybe it wouldn't hurt anything. >> I'm assuming they would still >> retain control of the brand name, >> and presumably anybody wanting >> to call their Java implementation >> "Java" would have to pass Sun's >> compatibility tests, much like >> the situation today for >> J2EE app servers... >>=20 >> TTYL, >>=20 >> Phil R. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Juglist mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Juglist mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org _______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
