Has Sun ever gone on the record as to why they insist on the field-of- use clause in the JCK?
There has been some suggestion that it's to do with protecting the revenue stream from ME licenses. If that's the case I don't see why they wouldn't just say so. Dave Patterson On Apr 5, 2:08 pm, JodaStephen <jodastep...@googlemail.com> wrote: > To the Posse (replying to the episode), > This is about the difference between an open specification and and > open source implementation. The two things are different. > > Sun has successfully created OpenJDK, an open source project under the > GPL license. This is being run in a pretty open manner and Sun should > be praised for that. > > However, an open specification allows anyone else (other than Sun) to > create their own implementation, one that is completely independent of > Sun's code (and deals with IP transfer issues and compatibility > testing amongst other issues). The name of the specification is the > "Java SE platform" (Thus, the shorthand is "Java 7 is the spec, and > JDK 7 is the implementation"). > > At present, there is no Java SE 7 platform specification. My blogs > have been seeking to show that until the problems Apache Harmony have > faced are resolved, then there may well not be a Java SE 7 > specification. Hence, no "Java 7, only JDK 7". > > The question is whether the community is willing to allow Java to > become just an implementation, rather than a specification. Amusingly, > as an implementation without a specification, the Burton Group would > classify OpenJDK as a "rebel framework" > -http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2009/03/open-source-is-not-as-open-as-... > > Finally, to Tor. These decisions were being taken at the highest level > in Sun. Its no great surprise that many Sun employees aren't aware of > just how strongly Sun has been playing their hand here. > > I'm happy to be interviewed on this topic, as I'm sure would Geir (the > official Apache representative). Although I'm a member of Apache, I've > tried my absolute best to demonstrate the reality of the situation > through links, each of which is worth reading for this very important > story. In other words, I've tried to act closer to an investigative > journalist, rather than a member of Apache for the purposes of the > debate. I'll leave it to history to judge if I acted fairly or not. > > Stephen Colebourne > Member, Apache Software Foundation (speaking personally - ie. > unapproved) > Sun Java Champion --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
