[kaffe] Re: dotnet platform support / gnu config.sub (long)

[Jim Pick]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:38:38 +0200
Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org> wrote:

> >> JVM, JDK, Java, etc. are all trade marks with associated conditions of 
> >> use. http://www.sun.com/suntrademarks/#J . Are you sure you want/need 
> >> to use them?
> > 
> > 
> > Yes. Actually, if the target is a java'ish machine then they will have to
> > take care of any of that legalese themselves. The config.sub thing is not
> > a java'ish thing itself here. - Furthermore, the use context is obviously
> > talking about compatiblity with a certain vm type and not identity, as
> > expressed in a lot of corners and we know that config.sub simply trying to
> > get a "canonic" variant of certain arguments given. jvm, java and similar
> > names _are_ the canonic variant of anything quite like it but not
> > the product (trademark!) itself.
> 
> AFAIK sun has quite strict rules about claiming compatibility with any 
> of their Java products. Basically, you can't do it, unless you shell out 
> big bucks for a license to their code. But I may misunderstand what you 
> want to say.

Sun has a lot of lawyers, and they've been pretty aggressive than most
about staking their claims on the linguistic turf (so they can sell it
off).

Because they claim "Java Compatible"(tm) as a trademark, it makes it
hard to use a normal noun+verb sentence to say that we're compatible
with Java -- we are, by most dictionary definitions, but we're not "Java
Compatible"(tm), under Trademark law.  Maybe we can say that we're
interoperable?  :-)

Anyways, the config.sub name is just going to be used to define a
"target" - so it makes sense to call the target "Java", since it's only
going to be used by tools generating Java byte code, which will run on
Sun's JVM.  Of course it will still run on other virtual machines that
can't use the Java trademark, but that shouldn't be of any concern to
the tools generating the code, IMHO.

Cheers,

 - Jim