[antlr-interest] Re: Managed to compile under .Net !!

Thu Jul 3 03:28:57 PDT 2003

I'd refer you to clause 7 too ...

Note that it says the purpose of all the previous stuff is "to enable MS
to continue shipping existing product 'as is' ". Hence the ban on
improving it ... Note also that the "existing product" was called "Java"
when it breached the compatibility requirements and, as such, was not
allowed to be called Java as per the contract.

In other words, this was a "get-out" agreement, to avoid MS being forced
to pull the plug on Java developers - it was in Sun's interest and in
MS's interest to allow the existing state of affairs to continue, but
Sun did not want MS to make further incompatible modifications.

Oh - and when I said MS was behaving like a spoilt brat I wasn't
thinking of the current legal spat - I was thinking of this one. It was
ALWAYS an option open to MS to submit their JVM for testing, and if it
had passed the compatibility tests it would have been fine to ship. But
MS chose to drop the product, rather than fix those places where it
failed the compatibility tests.

The whole point of the Sun lawsuit was that MS had licenced Sun code,
and was using the Java trademark, and contrary to the terms of the
contract was shipping a product that failed the compatibility tests. If
MS had fixed the compatibility problem they would have been allowed to
continue shipping updated JVMs.

All that agreement says is that MS could continue to sell their existing
1.1.4 JVM. It also prevents them shipping an improved product that is in
breach of the original contract. If MS had chosen to abide by the
contract then they could have shipped an updated JVM! THAT is why I said
they were behaving like spoilt brats - they broke their side of the
agreement, and when the other side complained they picked up their
marbles and went home ...

Cheers,
Wol

-----Original Message-----
From: tdjastrzebski [mailto:tdjastrzebski at yahoo.com] 
Sent: 03 July 2003 11:07
To: antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [antlr-interest] Re: Managed to compile under .Net !!

> Where's the legal stuff saying it CAN'T be compatible?

http://safariexamples.informit.com/0130320722/mslegal/java/settlement.
html
- see section 6(a) and others
They can not even improve performance (!) - section 7(a)iii

Well, you are right. It can be compatible but ... they (MS) would 
need a new license for it. Current license does not allow them to go 
beyond version 1.1.4 (http://java.sun.com/pr/2001/01/pr010123-
01.html).

I think MS is just afraid that if they continue to develop new 
versions compatible with new "official" versions Sun could try to 
prove in court that this is still Java but named J#. (J++ was not 
named Java too). And they would probably win.

Of course MS could get a new license but I am not sure they actually 
could. And right now, I am sure, they do not want to.
Remember, whatever they say this is primary about business and 
competition.

> MS is acting like a spoilt brat

Well, I think it is kind of new Sun's point of view, when they want 
MS to distribute their VM :) But read their older statements...

Cheers,
Tom Jastrzebski

<Anthony.Youngman at E...> wrote:
> Where's the legal stuff saying it CAN'T be compatible?
> 
> The whole legal fuss was over the fact that MS was calling their 
stuff
> "Java" when it couldn't pass the certification tests, and was
> *deliberately* making their implementation appear to produce 
portable
> code when it was stuffed with Win32 extensions.
> 
> As far as I know, there is ABSOLUTELY NO BARRIER to MS including
> Java-compatibility stuff. The two points at issue are that MS is 
acting
> like a spoilt brat, and that Sun got an injunction saying that MS
> couldn't call it "Java" unless it could pass the Java-compatibility
> tests (or in other words "don't abuse our trademark").
> 
> Cheers,
> Wol.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdjastrzebski [mailto:tdjastrzebski at y...] 
> Sent: 02 July 2003 23:10
> To: antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [antlr-interest] Re: Managed to compile under .Net !!
> 
> 
> > I was also able to use J# to generate Tool.exe file for .NET
> > As Tom mentioned, there was only one change needed, which it 
seems 
> Microsoft
> > team missed from their java library implementation.
> 
> They did not forget. This is a legal issue. J# can be Java 
compatible 
> up to version 1.1.4 while File.getParentFile() was introduced in 
jdk 
> 1.2.
> Tom Jastrzebski
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 
> This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may 
contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you 
in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you 
copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. 
Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or 
telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from 
your information system.
> 
> Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)
2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 
and New York +1 212 582 2333.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

-------------- next part --------------
This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system.

Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333.