jeff at licquia.org
Mon Apr 28 11:32:42 PDT 2008
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> 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.
We should make sure the wording of our spec and Sun's expectations
match, then, when the time comes. We do plan to say something like this:
"An LSB distribution will provide a Java virtual machine at
/usr/bin/java that is Java-tastic."
Where "Java-tastic" is a short way of saying, as I think of it now,
"complies with Sun's specifications for a Java VM". That would seem to
imply that "LSB certified" implies "Java-spec compliant".
So the tricky part is deciding what the best definition for
"Java-tastic" is, if we don't want to make that implication. Or, we
could just add a disclaimer.
More information about the lsb-discuss