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

Thu Jul 3 04:09:05 PDT 2003

I did not say that it is not all Microsoft's fault. Indeed, it is.
But under current agreement, which they were force to sing as a 
penalty, Microsoft can not develop the product (regardless it is J++ 
or J#) any further than version 1.1.4. Which means thay can not even 
do reverse engineering and implement functionality found in new 
versions. Some other company could, but not Microsoft.

Tom Jastrzebski

--- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, "Anthony W Youngman" 
<Anthony.Youngman at E...> wrote:
> 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 y...] 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/ 