OpenJDK GB Minutes: 2007/8/23

[Dalibor Topic]

Andy Tripp schrieb:
> It doesn't make sense to me that both of these would be considered 
> "substantially derived":
> a) Your own VM with OpenJDK libraries
> b) Your own libraries with the OpenJDK VM
>
The basic idea for me behind that is that one would want to encourage 
compatibile implementations,
by letting them reuse as much code as possible or necessary from the 
reference implementation,
i.e. OpenJDK, and making access to the TCK available under sufficiently 
liberal terms for such
implementations. The licensing of OpenJDK is such, that proprietary 
implementations based on its
code are strongly discouraged, which eliminates the typical reason for 
deliberately incompatible
implementations.
> What's to stop, say, Apache Harmony, from releasing three versions: 
The question you are referring to has been asked with an eye on GPLv3, 
as Mark Wielaard explained.
I wouldn't interpret too much into it, I was just interested in the 
question from a general perspective.
> Thanks for making all these discussions so open.
> I hope you find these comments useful and not just paranoid ranting.
> Enough people have struggled with incompatible compilers for decades 
> to justify some paranoia.
Sure, no worries. I believe a lot of your questions in your post about 
the nature of the work with the TCK,
compatibility, etc. will answer themselves once the Conformance group is 
instituted, and starts working,
provided the IGB approves the proposal to create the group.

cheers,
dalibor topic