[lsb-discuss] Java

[Joseph Kowalski]

Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
...
>> By my reading of the license, Sun doesn't get in the business of 
>> "certifing JCK results" (I think I said otherwise earlier in the 
>> tread - I've been corrected).  Its up to the LSB to either certify 
>> the results to your satisfaction or to let the distros self-certify.  
>> This is kinda a self-correcting problem.  It wouldn't be pretty if a 
>> distro asserted Java conformance and then got caught by some 
>> blogger.  Ain't the Linux community wonderful!  (Seriously, a great 
>> attribute.)
>
> We should be fine with that.  Does the JCK have a machine-readable 
> report format?  We'd probably want to munge it into TET journals, 
> which is our preferred format for test results.
Don't know.  I'll find out.
>
> What we might have been thinking was that Sun wouldn't necessarily 
> want to outsource the decision of "this JVM is Java" to a third 
> party.  And maybe Sun isn't.  Are you thinking of a "Java-compliant" 
> kind of thing, sorta like our "LSB-compliant" vs. "LSB-certified" 
> distinction?
I think this works is by trademark.  You can't say "Java-compliant"; its 
either Java or its not.  (Don't quote me on this.  I'll make sure that 
the final wording is correct.  Lawyers (from Sun) will probably be 
involved.)

I think the important distinction here is that Sun does not validate JCK 
tests and doesn't certify.  (Again, I need to be absolutely sure about 
this.)

(Again, I'm not a lawyer, but) I think you (linux-foundation) should not 
be *directly* making certification assertions about Java.  You should 
just be making assertions about LSB-certification.  This may be a fine 
point (because the proposal is to include Java in the LSB-certification 
process), but I think it is something to think about.

- jek3


- jek3