[FoRK] Fwd: [Processing] download the new beta release!

Luis Villa luis.villa at gmail.com
Thu May 19 20:32:54 PDT 2005

On 5/19/05, Luis Villa <luis.villa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael Silk <michaelslists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > * because on principle one shouldn't use any software whose
> > > maintenance is monopolized by anyone
> >
> > i agree. [message written in gmail, on windows xp, using ie].
> >
> > but seriously ...
> >
> > you know anyone is free to implement their own jvm as per java
> > language specs?
> It's far from clear that this would really continue to be the case if
> Sun's back were even further again the wall. IBM would of course still
> be in the clear because they have more lawyers than Sun does, but
> Sun's rhetoric, and the licensing terms around Java (in terms of the
> use of the name, the cost/availability of the compatibility test
> suite, etc.) don't really match up.

Let me put it another way- if Sun's Java strategy was actually free
software/open source friendly, they could very, very easily open
Java's code- it would be the best way to reduce fragmentation and
increase code quality (which are always their claimed excuses for not
opening it) because it would focus all energy on one implementation,
instead of the 3-4 that are now floating around. That they don't open
the code- *the best path towards their claimed goals*-  indicates to
me and many others that their rhetoric and their actual strategy don't
match, and that mismatch inspires a distrust that no amount of claims
about what they would or wouldn't do to free java implementations can


More information about the FoRK mailing list