| |||||||||||||
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committeeApache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committeePosted Dec 10, 2010 6:01 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753)In reply to: Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee by mikov Parent article: Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee absurd that there can be only one GPL implementation of Java. Since the limitations are based on trademarks, couldn't you work around the problem by not calling your alternate implementation Java? It could otherwise implement precisely the same language. I realize the way Java works can cause problems: paths to standard classes contain the word "java" and other trademarks. The question of whether the alternate implementation can use path names likes this could keep a troop of lawyers employed for years...
(Log in to post comments)
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee Posted Dec 10, 2010 6:19 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
It is usually the public facing end user stuff that trademark covers. For example, CentOS has many packages and files with the name "redhat" in it including the old redhat-config* and /etc/redhat-release and noone bothers about that. Websites, about boxes in prominent programs etc may however be problematic. IANAL of course.
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee Posted Dec 10, 2010 7:16 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Centos does have /etc/redhat-release . That file, though, states that the system is a Centos system.
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee Posted Dec 10, 2010 7:38 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Yep precisely my point. The filename itself is not a problem. The content is replaced because it is used in used in *other* user visible places.
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee Posted Dec 10, 2010 6:32 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> It could otherwise implement precisely the same language.
That exactly is the problem. It can work in exactly the same way, but because it didn't pass TCK (which you cannot get, obviously), then it will never be Java. So, when you try to convince you "customers" that it is, you lose.
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee Posted Dec 10, 2010 13:03 UTC (Fri) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
If it doesn't pass the TCK, which it can't since the field of use restrictions are incompatible with free licenses, it doesn't get a patent grant from Oracle. Oracle has shown that it is willing to enforce these patents. So you and your customers would be crazy to voluntarily assume such a vulnerable position.
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee Posted Dec 10, 2010 21:01 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Precisely. And even before they sue you over patents, you also cannot legally call it Java, so that's a double whammy.
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee Posted Dec 10, 2010 11:43 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
"Since the limitations are based on trademarks, couldn't you work around the problem by not calling your alternate implementation Java?"
One would have thought so. But isn't that EXACTLY why Oracle is suing Google?
The whole point of Dalvik is "Dalvik is not Java", and they still get sued ...
Cheers,
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee Posted Dec 10, 2010 12:16 UTC (Fri) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link] That's because it *isn't* just trademarks, it's patents too. At least that's what Oracle alleges. To be fair they also allege copyright infringement, so clearly crazy things are being asserted.
Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee Posted Dec 10, 2010 18:53 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
I don't think it is that crazy. It appears Google did use a disassembler although Google disagrees, naturally.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/12/google_accuses_or...
|
|||||||||||||