harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [legal] Re: Bringing License arguments to Sun
Date Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:32:43 GMT
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 23:37 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.
> 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.

I am not sure this is the case for big corporation's own Java implemetations. 
It is likely Sun cares about its own priorities and in case of IBM for 
example it doesn't care how well Java runs on Power. It could be a reason 
enough to write a proprietary Java VM. And since all of corporations license 
classlib from Sun they all have to implement sun.* classes to an extent to 
make classlib functional.

> 'Never again' should be the motto for IBM & BEA, imho. They should let
> deeds follow the open letters, and open up their
> proprietary implementations.

No one knows which license agreements they've signed to get classlib. It could 
be impossible to them to open the implementation too tightly tied with Sun's 

Gregory Shimansky, Intel Middleware Products Division

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

View raw message