Found OpenJDK 6 windows build at www.openscg.com/se/

[Mark Wielaard]

On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 16:05 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 13:55 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> >> And that gets us back to my point. OpenJDK is what has the mindshare
> >> NOT "Icedtea" which sounds like a beverage rather than a piece of
> >> software. "JDK" and "OpenJDK" are instead very well known names.
> >
> > Right, but Oracle claims trademarks on those words, so we cannot freely
> > use them. They did grant a trademark license that probably covers most
> > of IcedTea usage (Mark Reinhold provided a patch to make IcedTea say it
> > is OpenJDK in some configurations and just plain IcedTea in others). And
> > in fact most GNU/Linux distros package IcedTea and just call it OpenJDK
> > depending on the trademark grant.
> 
> A package name in a repository is not the same as using "OpenJDK" in a
> commercal product packaging or advertisements. It would be akin to
> Microsoft suing someone for the use of the "truetype.dll" file name in
> a clean room implementation of the truetype engine...

Probably.

> Has anyone actually asked Oracle, or is this just guessing?

Yes, they posted a trademark guideline:
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html
hmmm, that is odd. That is version 1.1. Which appears to be the one in
current openjdk6, but I thought there was an update to 1.2 announced
here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openjdk.general/883 which
at least would allow upgrading hotspot (which we regularly do in
IcedTea).

It isn't that we don't want to use the name OpenJDK. It is a great name
and a great project. But clearly not all IcedTea derivatives fall under
that grant (and now I am even confused if there actually ever was an
update from the 1.1 to the 1.2 version of the grant). And nobody wants
to accidentally cross the legal line drawn up. So it is just easier to
be clear about what is what and what is clearly (or probably) not.

Cheers,

Mark