jek3 at sun.com
Fri Apr 25 14:29:57 PDT 2008
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
> 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"
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
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
(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.
More information about the lsb-discuss