[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 09:52:09AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> First, it is not clear whether the license has any legal meaning at all.
> It is publicly available documentation, and I don't know how they
> could legally restrict someone from using it to build a clean-room
> implementation.  I.e. are they just permitting us to do something
> we can do anyway?  (And of course the legal status of reverse
> engineering varies from country to country.)

I agree, unfortunatly these are theories that will ultimately be tested by
bringing one set of legal resources against another. In this department, 
Sun has us at a definate disadvantage.

> I could argue the onus is on Sun:  If we don't have access to the
> test-suite, we can't verify compliance.  However, our *goal* is
> to comply, and if any discrepencies are pointed out, we will
> attempt to fix the problem, to the extent of our abilities.

Again, we ultimately have to answer these questions in a court of law.
I'm a tremendous Java (the language, the technology) advocate, but the
picture Sun has painted for us is fuzzy at best, and fraut with peril.
In the end, I think that the best thing to do is a slow migration from
Sun technologies (especially new SCSL things) to open standards such as
DOM and SAX where we have a foothold. If the community can expand its
influence with successful APIs then we have something worth fighting for.

This is where I find Apache's strategy of cooperation almost troubling.
Integrating silly glommed-on API extensions like JAXP into their systems
is a strange move. I find it ironic that Sun (who makes such a fuss about
extending their APIs) has turned an Open Source project into a tool for
"extending and embracing" the open SAX and DOM technologies.

Ean Schuessler                Director of Strategic Weapons Systems
Brainfood, Inc.                  A Devices that Kill People company
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke

Reply to: