Slashdot Mirror

You see, while Microsoft clearly doesn't own ECMA C#, Sun owns the Java platform and large chunks of its implementation, with no free alternatives.

No free alternatives? Who is spreading FUD now?
http://www.kaffe.org/
http://www.japhar.org/
http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux.html
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/classpath.ht ml
http://gcc.gnu.org/java/

Sure, a lot of these projects are far behind the official Java in version and capabilities today, but if Sun would suddenly change the licensing or start to charge people for using Java, there are a huge amount of companies (IBM, Oracle, BEA...) with too much invested in Java, and a huge number of experienced Java programmers. Don't you think they would sponsor these projects to quickly get a viable open source alternative up and running?

And that's not the only option. Although I've never used it, and so can't comment on its quality, there's also the Hungry Programmers' Japhar.

What about Japhar and Classpath? Or SableVM, ORP,...

Do you plan to actively support the use of FreeNet using free Java tools (like kaffe, japhar, gcj)?

Kaffe

Japhar

Kaffe is GPLed, Japhar is LGPLed. There may be more, but these are the two big names.

The published portions of the Java spec include the language syntax, the entire VM (all opcodes, the class file format, etc), all the classes under the java. packages and the Java Native Interface. It's all covered in the Java series from Addison Wesley. Off hand, I can't think of any other info that would be needed to build a fully compatible Java 2 standard edition. Of course it would be extremely difficult in practice, but isn't this exactly what Kaffe and Japhar are doing?

Can you give me contact addresses at Sun for Classpath and Japhar? I'm sure that Sun will be shocked to learn that these are under the LGPL.

In spite of Sun's attempt to keep Java in a corporate stranglehold, the free software community has produced several virtual machines (check out Kaffe and Japhar), a classpath implementation ( GNU Classpath), and a conformance test (see Mauve).

None of these are complete, but all are impressive and because of the GPL/ LGPL they will always be free software. Sure, Sun and other vendors offer the latest and greatest bells and whistles. Free software is inexorable -- it will catch up. I can wait, and those who can't are welcome to use proprietary products until then.

1. Microsoft can create clean room Java implementations.

   Duh! Can we say Kaffe? Japhar? Can we say "Sun has explicitly stated that this is ok for a very long time, even when HP threatened to do the same thing"?

   So, what exactly is new here? To me, the Judge just said "snow is white, grass is green, and MS can create Java clean room implementations". All three things are facts which have been known for a long time.

2. Microsoft's current products embody Sun's intellectual property.

   Another non-issue. Isn't that what the entire contract was about, the fact that Microsoft was licensing Java technology from Sun? So therefore it obviously follows that Microsoft products have Sun's Java technology in them?

3. Issue of Microsoft violating Sun's "Java" trademark.

   This to me seems also like an extremely straightforward point. Sun only allows certain Java products to officially use the logo and Java trademark; these are ones that pass their compatibility tests at minimum, and most likely ones that are based on their actual intellectual property. Clean room implementations do not a priori fit this category, so they can't officially bear the Java logo or name. (Unless Sun of course decides to explicitly give them this right.)

   So, if Microsoft follows Sun's rules, they can bear the logo and name, if they don't, they can't. This applies regardless of clean room implementation or not.

   This also seems to be another clear-cut issue unaffected by Judge Whyte's rulings (except peripherally, meaning that determining Microsoft violated the contract with Sun also means determining Microsoft violated use of the Java trademark).

The only significant thing here is that Judge Whyte has decided that Microsoft violated the Java license by not passing the compatibility tests. Why the emphasis? Because this is what the trial is about in the first place! (See here.)

This trial was not originally about clean room implementations; it's been known from the beginning that is acceptable. It's only about whether Microsoft had a contractual obligation to comply with the full Java spec and Sun's compatibility tests. From that regard, Judge Whyte's "preliminary rulings" are equivalent to deciding the trial: Microsoft is guilty.
----------