Re: Classpath and Kaffe
On Jun 28, 2000, "Nic Ferrier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm confused about TranV's position now... the Kaffe web site says
that no code contributed to Kaffe will be used by TransV. I don't see
why not... I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it - they're
supporting the GPL and I applaud that and want to help.
They must be able to license the code to their customers under
different licenses. Same issue with libgcj: Cygnus (now Red Hat) took
a different approach of requiring copyright assignments, just like
FSF, in order to integrate changes from network contributors.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
Re: Classpath and Kaffe
Tim Wilkinson writes: Also, has anyone got a legal opinion of using the 1.2 spec from Sun to write an independent implementation of the 1.2 additions? McNealy's minor minions have one to offer: If the judge were to rule against Sun, "that's not a disaster for us, for the following reason -- it is very difficult, close to if not, in fact, impossible, to build an implementation of the Java platform without at least looking at the documentation or its specifications," said Alan Baratz, president of software products and platforms at Sun. "Well, that's Sun intellectual property. And the judge has been very clear about that, that if Microsoft uses the specs or uses the documentation, it is not an independent work," Baratz continued. "Or if Microsoft purchases something from a third party that had used the documentation or the specs, it's not an independent work." From www.javaworld.com/jw-07-idgns-lawsuit.html. For whatever it's worth in the amazing world of bogus software patents, look and feel, and language turned property. b.
Re: Classpath and Kaffe
Duncan W. McQueen writes: Is there any work or synchronization between Classpath and Kaffe? Are Not really. Are there things implemented in Classpath that aren't in Kaffe, and the same in reverse? Probably (I don't know what's currently implemented in Classpath). You could argue that the root of the problem is that Sun never fully spec'd the JVM, because they didn't specify what the native methods are (eg, in java.lang.Thread et.al). So Classpath and kaffe's "JVM API" are different. More to the point, they were started as separate projects, and like most separate projects, there hasn't been a lot of spontaneous communication or coordination. Plus, TVT needs to own the copyright to any files they sell to customers in the custom edition. So unless Classpath was willing to grant this right, TVT would have to rewrite everything anyway. -Archie ___ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com
Re: Classpath and Kaffe
But I am concerned with the GPL Kaffe. Is it unfeasible to attempt a merge of what Classpath has done into Klasses.jar?? Duncan W. McQueen writes: Is there any work or synchronization between Classpath and Kaffe? Are Not really. Are there things implemented in Classpath that aren't in Kaffe, and the same in reverse? Probably (I don't know what's currently implemented in Classpath). You could argue that the root of the problem is that Sun never fully spec'd the JVM, because they didn't specify what the native methods are (eg, in java.lang.Thread et.al). So Classpath and kaffe's "JVM API" are different. More to the point, they were started as separate projects, and like most separate projects, there hasn't been a lot of spontaneous communication or coordination. Plus, TVT needs to own the copyright to any files they sell to customers in the custom edition. So unless Classpath was willing to grant this right, TVT would have to rewrite everything anyway. -Archie ___ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http:// www.whistle.com
Re: Classpath and Kaffe
Archie, If you thinhk that scry you should see what Sun is saying in the Sun v. M$ in court. Cheers Tim On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote: Tim Wilkinson writes: Just to keep you informed, we just signed a customer who wants RMI implemented so we'll be spending some time on the RMI implementaiton pretty soon to bring NinjaRMI upto the Sun spec. (at least that in the 1.1 at anyrate). Cool.. and also cool to hear about java.security.. fortunately Sun has documented the security stuff pretty well. Also, has anyone got a legal opinion of using the 1.2 spec form Sun to write an independent implementation of the 1.2 additions? I've just ordered the latest spec book from AW and I'll see what that says but I believe it's legally scary. Hmm.. I'm no lawyer, but that seems far-fetched.. you might even be able to get from Sun a letter to the effect that "It's OK to implement the Sun spec", because after all this is what they're claiming they want people to do, being "open" and all. Then if they refuse, raise hell and tell the whole world. -Archie ___ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com
