From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27225 invoked by alias); 8 May 2009 11:00:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 27214 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2009 11:00:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wildebeest.demon.nl (HELO gnu.wildebeest.org) (80.101.103.228) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 May 2009 11:00:45 +0000 Received: from shuttle.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.1] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1M2Nob-0007q8-FK; Fri, 08 May 2009 13:00:33 +0200 Subject: Re: GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath From: Mark Wielaard To: Andrew Haley Cc: Andrew John Hughes , Chris Gray , bmckinlay , svferro , java In-Reply-To: <4A0405A4.3020404@redhat.com> References: <17c6771e0905070828n441803edx6cf6291ed9b01e5e@mail.gmail.com> <1241713494.3769.6.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <4A030CE7.6050309@redhat.com> <1241716199.3769.16.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <4A031855.3030505@redhat.com> <1241718259.3769.36.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905071722m4ac664fft7293bf91b78df804@mail.gmail.com> <4A0405A4.3020404@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 11:00:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1241780423.3538.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 11:12 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > > > The clause in the OpenJCK6 license which restricts its use to projects > > 'substantially derived' from OpenJDK (judgement of which is made > > secretly by Sun as part of the decision process) makes me very dubious > > about it being a test of the specification. It's very clearly a test > > of compatibility with the reference implementation provided by Sun and > > only JDKs derived from this reference implementation have ever passed > > it. > > I don't believe this to be true, BTW: I know IBM have a clean room > implementation, and I think others do too. Of the VM and compiler yes, but no alternative core library implementation not derived from Sun's code has ever passed the TCK. In fact Sun has till now refused to even provide the TCK to any alternative core library implementation not derived from their own code. Cheers, Mark