Possible licensing issue with JavaSoft?

[benjamin at marimba.com]

>a) Use of the trade-marked "Java" name.  In commercial use you would want
>to be very careful when using "Java" without Sun's permission.  This is
>an issue that came up when Sun proposed Java for ISO certification.
>There is some Sun-approved work-around (something like "Java platform")
>- look around java.sun.com.

What's the status of the "Unix" name?  Failing a Sun-approved 
work-around, I suppose that "J*va" would work, and be pretty useful, 
much like Un*x etc.

>2) Whether Sun would sue (or threaten to sue) over a commercial
>clean-room re-implementation of Java, and if they did, whether they
>would have a reasonable chance of prevailing.  I believe the answer
>to these questions is no, and Cygnus is investing big bucks on that
>belief.

I remember a tale of someone who put a Java logo on his homepage in 
the very early days of the language, to show his support.  But then 
Sun threatened to sue him...  I think that Sun's legal department has 
been quite stupidly aggressive in the past, and is probably still so.  
Whether or not they stand a chance of winning, they might try.  
Perhaps they were just bored back then, in which case we're all safe 
for now ;)

>3) Whether Kaffe is a clean-room implementation of Java.
>Even though Kaffe is a clean-room re-implementation (or at least
>close enough), the fact is that Kaffe is useless without Sun's
>classes.zip.

"The Net" plans to help out, I guess.  Whether they can keep up or not 
is another question, especially when Sun starts pulling a Microsoft 
and changing core classes gratuitously, as I expect they'll do when 
they feel comfortable about MS.  We will live in interesting times, 
indeed.

It would be kind of silly for any company _not_ to want a monopoly, 
wouldn't it?

-- 
benjamin at marimba.com            http://www.marimba.com/people/benjamin
PGP public key on my homepage, and finger -l bwpearre at cs.princeton.edu
1024/CC2761B9 97/2/11 E3 60 33 2F 1F 9D 17 60  DD 45 46 7E DF 1F 81 89