www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Date Sat, 11 Aug 2007 06:25:48 GMT

On Aug 10, 2007, at 5:12 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:19 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:
>
>> "An implementation is "substantially derived" from the OpenJDK  
>> code base
>> if it includes a large body of code existing in the code base that  
>> does
>> something identifiably significant, or implements some set of APIs in
>> their entirety. The code need not be part of Sun's implementation it
>> only needs to exist in the code base."
>>
>> the 'substantially derived' clause is there to stop anyone testing a
>> harmony release that I made under GPL, and certifying compliance.
>
> Which means that they are driving a wedge between "OpenJDK derived GPL
> implementations" and "grass roots GPL implementations" of J2SE 6 and
> beyond. The TCK license speaks only of J2SE 6.

That's because it's the only one relevant now for testing.

>
> Now that is IMHO something that the FSF will not like... Maybe we  
> should
> point this out specifically to RMS and just sit back.

I have no clue anymore about what the FEF will or will not like.  The  
key test will be if they sign Sun's contribution agreement for pieces  
of GNU Classpath that Sun needs, so that Sun will have joint  
copyright, letting them re-license under closed terms to IBM, BEA,  
APple, Oracle, etc.

If that happens, it represents a complete inversion of the FSF  
philosophy, from working to make all source code free, to being an  
enabler of and contributor to closed source software.  Ironic.

We live in interesting times.

geir


Mime
View raw message