On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:38:38 +0200 Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> JVM, JDK, Java, etc. are all trade marks with associated conditions of > >> use. http://www.sun.com/suntrademarks/#J . Are you sure you want/need > >> to use them? > > > > > > Yes. Actually, if the target is a java'ish machine then they will have to > > take care of any of that legalese themselves. The config.sub thing is not > > a java'ish thing itself here. - Furthermore, the use context is obviously > > talking about compatiblity with a certain vm type and not identity, as > > expressed in a lot of corners and we know that config.sub simply trying to > > get a "canonic" variant of certain arguments given. jvm, java and similar > > names _are_ the canonic variant of anything quite like it but not > > the product (trademark!) itself. > > AFAIK sun has quite strict rules about claiming compatibility with any > of their Java products. Basically, you can't do it, unless you shell out > big bucks for a license to their code. But I may misunderstand what you > want to say. Sun has a lot of lawyers, and they've been pretty aggressive than most about staking their claims on the linguistic turf (so they can sell it off). Because they claim "Java Compatible"(tm) as a trademark, it makes it hard to use a normal noun+verb sentence to say that we're compatible with Java -- we are, by most dictionary definitions, but we're not "Java Compatible"(tm), under Trademark law. Maybe we can say that we're interoperable? :-) Anyways, the config.sub name is just going to be used to define a "target" - so it makes sense to call the target "Java", since it's only going to be used by tools generating Java byte code, which will run on Sun's JVM. Of course it will still run on other virtual machines that can't use the Java trademark, but that shouldn't be of any concern to the tools generating the code, IMHO. Cheers, - Jim _______________________________________________ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe