Re: OpenJDK

"JamesW" <jimmy@spam.no> wrote in message
news:elmn8n$4mk$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...


    Once again, it doesn't make sense to say a language is open source or
not. Only *implementations* of the language can be open source.

    And there already exists multiple incompatible languages. PHP is not
compatible with Java, nor is C#, nor LISP, nor COBOL, nor FORTRAN, etc.
Sun's releasing the source code for their implementation of Java isn't going
to make the existence of multiple incompatible languages any worst, because
we already have tons of incompatible languages.


    I believe IBM already had a Java JVM long before Sun decided to release
the source code for their own JVM. So once again, whether or not Sun makes
their implementation open source has very little effect on whether or not
other companies will provide their own implementation of Java.


    The same way it has always been done: Sun has a published set of
specifications. If you comply with the specifications, you are legally
allowed to call your product a "Java compiler", or a "Java Virtual Machine",
or whatever it is your product does. If you *DON'T* comply with their
specifications, then you are not legally allowed to call your product a
"Java compiler", or a "Java Virtual Machine". Instead, you might be able to
call it a "Perl compiler", or a "Visual Basic Compiler", or a "James'
Private Programming Language (JPPL) compiler", etc.

    Microsoft tried to make a product which didn't comply with the specs
while simultaneously calling that product a "Java Virtual Machine", and they
got into legal trouble. Now they call it a "J++ Virtual Machine", or a "J#
Virtual Machine". See, as long as you follow the spec, you're allowed to use
the trademarked term "Java". And what that means for consumers is that if
you see a product with the term "Java" in its name, you can be confident
that it follows the spec, and thus that there won't be compatibility issues.


    I don't see how. The only effect I see from this open sourcing is that
the Linux enthusiasts who refused to allow any non-Free (as in speech)
software onto their computer will now be willing to allow Java onto their
computer.


    I think there are multiple fallacies with this line of reasoning.

    First of all, a lot of languages have many variants, and are still very
popular today. C/C++ for example, has many variants (GNU, ANSI, MSVC, etc.),
and a lot of programming is still done in C/C++ today. COBOL has a lot of
variants (RM, Liant, AS/400, etc.), and the banking and insurance industry
is dependent on a whole lot of COBOL code, with some shops still actively
developing COBOL programs.

    Second, you seem to think that the multiple instances of a programming
language are nescessarily going to be incompatible with each other, but as
can be seen by comparing Sun's, IBM's, and SableCC's JVM, they are all
pretty good with confirming to the specifications, and Sun's specification
is detailed (leaving very little undefined behaviour), so this is not the
case.

    Third, you seem to think that if Sun "open sources Java", that'll
somehow mean people can create variants of Java, and yet still name their
variants "Java", thus causing confusion, but as outlined above, that cannot
legally happen. You are, of course, free to create a variant of Java, but
you cannot actually name the variant that you produce "Java". You'd have to
name it something else, like J++, J#, or JPPL (and you'd better consult
Microsoft first if you plan on using one of those first two names).


    I guess we disagree.

    - Oliver