incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: FAQ for Apache Harmony
Date Sat, 07 May 2005 02:59:03 GMT

On May 6, 2005, at 10:35 PM, Simon Kitching wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 19:23 -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 May 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>> How does SWT relate?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It really doesn't. I think of it as an extra-J2SE application API.
>>>
>>> But there has been quite a bit of back and forth about SWT and  
>>> Swing so this
>>> seemed like a question someone might ask....
>>>
>>
>> I think, to make it clear to the world that open source and  
>> adhering to
>> standards are not in conflict, SWT should not be a part of Harmony's
>> builds/releases until it is part of J2SE proper.  If SWT is  
>> offered to us
>> it should be (for now) a separate project.
>>
>
> Are there any legal implications for "extending" Java?

Yes

>
> If I remember correctly, it was Microsoft's decision to include
> additional features (esp. "delegates") in its Java implementation that
> caused Sun to sue them.

Could be.  I lost the plot on that lawsuit a long time ago.

>
> Would this new implementation be legally forbidden from  
> implementing new
> core features not present in the Sun specification? One of the *nice*
> points of having a Free Java implementation is being able to  
> improve on
> things.

The implementation that said was compatible J2SE would have to  
conform to the specification.  This is open source - we can create an  
environment where we can have lots of VM technology, but what we  
claim is our J2SE implementation better be J2SE.  Anything else can't  
be called "Java".

Anyone can take our code and do what they wish with it.  It's the  
same for Geronimo - you can take the codebase, and do whatever you  
want.  It doesn't have to be J2EE, but you can't call it J2EE either.

>
> Re SWT: I presume there would be no legal problem with "Harmony"
> distributions bundling the SWT libraries with it (as these are not  
> core
> language modifications, and the classes are not in the java.* or  
> javax.*
> namespaces). However I would agree that there isn't much point in ever
> doing so; the major benefit of having libs bundled is that application
> developers can just *assume* the feature is present when coding.  
> But as
> Harmony is likely to be a minor player for at least a decade to come,

Thanks for the support... :)

> that assumption couldn't be made by developers and therefore it  
> doesn't
> seem to bring any benefits for Harmony to bundle SWT or any such
> "extension" libraries. Having SWT development hosted as  a separate
> Apache project is another thing though - I would quite like to see  
> that!
>

Indeed.  That might be very interesting.  Of course, we can just go  
over and do it at Eclipse if we really cared...

geir

> Regards,
>
> Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message