harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [legal] Re: Bringing License arguments to Sun
Date Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:18:48 GMT
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 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. :)

> '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 :)


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