[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-07-30
alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Fri Aug 8 09:19:00 PDT 2008
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:53:23 -0400
Jeff Licquia <jeff at licquia.org> wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but from a legal point of view, I thought the
> > trademark agreements were that people aren't allocated to call their
> > bag of bits "Java" until they pass the JCK. Hence, until they certify
> > that bag of bits, they could distribute it as "Icedtea", but they
> > wouldn't be able to distribute packages that install in /usr/bin/java
> > (and which incorporates the name "java" in the package name) until
> > they pass the JCK. Is that correct?
> There could be a chicken-and-egg issue there; if you're required to call
> the JVM "java" by the TCK, then you won't pass the TCK until you do.
> Also, I believe there are "Javas" that haven't passed the JCK but
> install into /usr/bin/java; gcj and kaffe come to mind. I don't know
> that Sun pursues its trademark into the functional arena. But perhaps
> Dalibor knows better.
Hopefully they are smarter than that. If they are not then LSB should not
mandate /usr/bin/java but /usr/bin/[somethingelse]. I would have hoped
the ssh debacle years ago had educated folks on that danger.
> create a "de facto profile" where people claim to be LSB compliant
> "except for Java" and skip certification.
I think this is a good idea anyway. It avoids the complexities of vendor
defined standards for specific applications.
Clear a "Java(tm) enabled Linux(tm) Standards Base" buzzword compliant
distribution should put java in an agreed place, with agreed places for
add ons and it had better be a TCK compliant product, but beyond that I
do not think tying the LSB into Java is smart.
More information about the lsb-discuss