harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dalibor Topic <robi...@kaffe.org>
Subject Re: [legal] Re: Bringing License arguments to Sun
Date Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:14:32 GMT
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe - or just declaring a patent peace or patent commons.  I think 
> >>that there's nothing wrong with proprietary software, so if they want 
> >>to keep competing using it, great.
> >
> >I don't see a point in proprietary JVMs, and class libraries for major 
> >operating systems, in today's situation.
> >
> >The only purpose I could see them used for is as a tool for attacks on 
> >the integrity of the platform through locking in users into proprietary 
> >extensions.
> 
> How about performance, either in speed, real-time predictability, memory 
> usage/footprint, reliability, serviceability, manageabliity?
> 

I am talking about proprietary extensions, you're talking about memory
footprint. One has nothing to do with the other. Could we stay on topic,
please?

> I can see all of these, and none of these are an attack on the Java 
> compatiblity promise.
> 
> Sure, they are features that are beyond the scope of the specs, and 
> sure, you may be "locked in" in the sense you depend on some feature 
> (integration with your favorite management system), but your programs 
> are portable...
> 
> >I don't think the market would be able to sort out a distributor with a 
> >strong channel, like IBM, that went that route, as our experience in 
> >Apache Harmony
> >with code using unspecified sun.* classes shows.
> 
> LOL.  What experience is that?  What we're doing this is just supporting 
> what has become the 'de facto' spec from Sun. :)

No. What we're doing is clapping our hands with forte because Sun has been
kind enough to announce that they'll open up all of their code base,
including the unspecified bits, which would allow us, in theory, to
integrate them, without having to reverse engineer them.

Do you want to take a bet that the next 'de facto' standard extensions
will be opened up within 10 years by their owners, or less?

I don't want proprietary Java vendors to waste our time in the future with
undocumented de-facto standards around proprietary extensions.

cheeers,
dalibor topic

> >
> >'Never again' should be the motto for IBM & BEA, imho. They should let 
> >deeds follow the open letters, and open up their
> >proprietary implementations.
> 
> I don't disagree - I'd love it if they offered the source for J9 or 
> JRocket to Harmony :)
> 
> geir
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message