Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #36222 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-29 17:57 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-02-13 12:46 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 48 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2017-01-29 17:57 +0100
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2017-01-30 07:39 +0100
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:08 +0100
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2017-02-07 09:26 +0100
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-02-07 08:34 +0000
Re: Type conversions with the empty string lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:20 -0800
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2017-02-13 08:40 +0100
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-02-13 17:38 +0000
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-02-13 17:48 +0000
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2017-02-16 10:53 +0100
Re: Type conversions with the empty string lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-02-19 02:42 -0800
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 08:45 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-19 09:20 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-19 09:21 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 10:51 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2017-02-19 19:55 +0100
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 15:55 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-19 23:31 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 08:39 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 06:10 -0800
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 09:54 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-20 10:25 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 11:02 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 08:45 -0800
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 14:46 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 12:23 -0800
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 16:31 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-20 11:58 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 14:46 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-20 15:54 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 20:31 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-19 09:13 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-02-19 14:43 +0000
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-19 10:11 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-02-19 15:20 +0000
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 10:53 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-19 23:24 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 08:43 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-20 10:16 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 11:03 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-20 12:00 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-20 14:49 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-20 15:47 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-02-20 22:18 -0800
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-21 08:23 -0500
Re: Type conversions with the empty string lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-02-19 02:39 -0800
Re: Type conversions with the empty string Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-13 12:46 -0500
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8evsm$phe$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #36360 |
On 2/20/2017 9:10 AM, Eric Douglas wrote: > On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 8:39:33 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> Nope. The class you add is in your own code, not the JRE. The JRE has >> not been modified. >> >> But once again you show you have little knowledge of legal issues, >> especially related to copyrights. >> > > While I doubt there are legal experts here, my best guess is you are in violation of Oracle copyright if you distribute a modified version of their JRE, or code that somehow alters their JRE. You shouldn't be able to alter the functionality of java.lang.String, but if you can load a jar that does that, don't distribute it. If you run that code for yourself or your employer, at worst it should be unsupported behavior. I wouldn't recommend it, but what you run in your own house is your problem. No one's going to track you down for running modified code yourself if you're not using it in connection with anyone else's system, just don't go crying to them if it stops working. > Do people even read any more? Java programmers do not distribute a JRE. They distribute jar and class files. Users get the JRE from Oracle or other authorized locations. But there is no way Oracle or anyone else can legally prohibit someone from supplying their own class files. You are not modifying any Oracle code, so their copyright on their code is not affected. And no copyright prohibits a "clean room" re-implementation of existing code. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8f1oi$vhk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36357 |
On 2/20/2017 8:39 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 2/19/2017 11:31 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 2/19/2017 10:51 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 2/19/2017 9:20 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 2/19/2017 8:45 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 2/19/2017 5:42 AM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>>>>>> Anyway, that's not the point of a few posts upthread, where the >>>>>>> point was about a scenario of someone messing with the JVM >>>>>>> itself, to get their own java.lang.String dummy in, e.g. to troll >>>>>>> some 3rd- party closed-source code. People with that agenda are >>>>>>> not likely to care about laws (might even be a case of >>>>>>> DMCA-violation for those who live where it matters - so much for >>>>>>> "What law?"). >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I know, not being a lawyer, most countries respect the >>>>>> trademark and copyright laws that protect the use of `java.lang` >>>>>> and `javax.lang` packages. >>>> >>>>> You're correct. You're not a lawyer. There is nothing in either >>>>> trademark or copyright law which prevents you from replacing >>>>> something, as long as you don't use the original item. They only >>>>> limit what you can do with the trademarked or copyrighted item. >>>> >>>> If we assume Oracle Java (which Lew seems to have done explicitly), >>>> the the logic is rather simple. >>>> >>>> The license states: >>>> >>>> <quote> >>>> Oracle grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license >>>> without license fees to reproduce and use internally the Software >>>> complete and unmodified for the sole purpose of running >>>> Programs.</quote> >>>> >>>> <quote> >>>> Unless enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not modify, >>>> decompile, or reverse engineer Software. >>>> </quote> >>>> >>>> The license prohibits modifications of the software. >>> >>> Adding your own class to your own files is not modification of the >>> software. >> >> Of course it is. > > Since when does another company control what classes I write for my own > files? The answer is - they don't. But they just control how you can use their stuff. >> We Oracle software which is a Java runtime environment consisting of: >> * Oracle JVM >> * Oracle java.lang.String class >> * rest of Oracle rt.jar >> * some other Oracle stuff >> >> We are discussing a new runtime environment with a different behavior >> of the String class consisting of: >> * Oracle JVM >> * somebody elses java.lang.String class >> * rest of Oracle rt.jar >> * some other Oracle stuff >> >> That runtime environment is a modfied version of Oracle's Java >> runtime environment. > > And where does it say adding your own class is a modified version of > Oracle's runtime environment? It doesn't - because you are not > modifying their runtime environment. > > What if you called it arne.String? Is that OK? If so, then why not > java.lang.String? Neither Oracle nor anyone else can control what you > call your classes. There is no license problem creating a java.lang.String class. But there is a problem creating a runtime environment with that class combined with Oracle's stuff. It becomes a runtime environment when something is created that can execute an Java application intended for a standard Java runtime environment. Remember the context. Stefan is writing a Java application using java.lang.String. The application is intended to run in a standard Java runtime environment. He is concerned that somebody else will setup a runtime environment with a custom java.lang.String (and Oracle's stuff). >>>> So: >>>> >>>> replacing java.lang.String => modified software => no Java license => >>>> usage of all the other Java classes is copyright violation >>>> >>> >>> You have not modified any existing software. You have replaced a class >>> with your own. >> >> The JRE has been modified by replacing the String class. >> >> The license does not talk about modifications of pieces of code. It >> talks about "the software" which is the entire JRE. > > Nope. The class you add is in your own code, not the JRE. The JRE has > not been modified. The class has been made part of the runtime environment the Java application is executing in. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 11:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8f3q6$8h2$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #36363 |
On 2/20/2017 10:25 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 2/20/2017 8:39 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 2/19/2017 11:31 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 2/19/2017 10:51 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 2/19/2017 9:20 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> On 2/19/2017 8:45 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 2/19/2017 5:42 AM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>>>>>>> Anyway, that's not the point of a few posts upthread, where the >>>>>>>> point was about a scenario of someone messing with the JVM >>>>>>>> itself, to get their own java.lang.String dummy in, e.g. to troll >>>>>>>> some 3rd- party closed-source code. People with that agenda are >>>>>>>> not likely to care about laws (might even be a case of >>>>>>>> DMCA-violation for those who live where it matters - so much for >>>>>>>> "What law?"). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I know, not being a lawyer, most countries respect the >>>>>>> trademark and copyright laws that protect the use of `java.lang` >>>>>>> and `javax.lang` packages. >>>>> >>>>>> You're correct. You're not a lawyer. There is nothing in either >>>>>> trademark or copyright law which prevents you from replacing >>>>>> something, as long as you don't use the original item. They only >>>>>> limit what you can do with the trademarked or copyrighted item. >>>>> >>>>> If we assume Oracle Java (which Lew seems to have done explicitly), >>>>> the the logic is rather simple. >>>>> >>>>> The license states: >>>>> >>>>> <quote> >>>>> Oracle grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license >>>>> without license fees to reproduce and use internally the Software >>>>> complete and unmodified for the sole purpose of running >>>>> Programs.</quote> >>>>> >>>>> <quote> >>>>> Unless enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not >>>>> modify, >>>>> decompile, or reverse engineer Software. >>>>> </quote> >>>>> >>>>> The license prohibits modifications of the software. >>>> >>>> Adding your own class to your own files is not modification of the >>>> software. >>> >>> Of course it is. >> >> Since when does another company control what classes I write for my own >> files? The answer is - they don't. > > But they just control how you can use their stuff. > Yes, they control how you use THEIR stuff. But not how you use YOUR stuff. The code you write is not their code. >>> We Oracle software which is a Java runtime environment consisting of: >>> * Oracle JVM >>> * Oracle java.lang.String class >>> * rest of Oracle rt.jar >>> * some other Oracle stuff >>> >>> We are discussing a new runtime environment with a different behavior >>> of the String class consisting of: >>> * Oracle JVM >>> * somebody elses java.lang.String class >>> * rest of Oracle rt.jar >>> * some other Oracle stuff >>> >>> That runtime environment is a modfied version of Oracle's Java >>> runtime environment. >> >> And where does it say adding your own class is a modified version of >> Oracle's runtime environment? It doesn't - because you are not >> modifying their runtime environment. >> >> What if you called it arne.String? Is that OK? If so, then why not >> java.lang.String? Neither Oracle nor anyone else can control what you >> call your classes. > > There is no license problem creating a java.lang.String class. > > But there is a problem creating a runtime environment with that > class combined with Oracle's stuff. > Who said anything about creating a runtime environment with that class combined with Oracle's stuff? I sure didn't. Only you did. > It becomes a runtime environment when something is created that > can execute an Java application intended for a standard Java > runtime environment. > Immaterial. > Remember the context. Stefan is writing a Java application > using java.lang.String. The application is intended to run > in a standard Java runtime environment. He is concerned that > somebody else will setup a runtime environment with > a custom java.lang.String (and Oracle's stuff). > And he can't stop that. Such is the world of programming. Once the code leaves your hands, you have no control over what someone might do with it. >>>>> So: >>>>> >>>>> replacing java.lang.String => modified software => no Java license => >>>>> usage of all the other Java classes is copyright violation >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have not modified any existing software. You have replaced a class >>>> with your own. >>> >>> The JRE has been modified by replacing the String class. >>> >>> The license does not talk about modifications of pieces of code. It >>> talks about "the software" which is the entire JRE. >> >> Nope. The class you add is in your own code, not the JRE. The JRE has >> not been modified. > > The class has been made part of the runtime environment the > Java application is executing in. > Or included ahead of the JRE in the classpath. > Arne > > -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 08:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <45ba86c5-e956-445b-81fc-72cb5f4fe81d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36364 |
On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 11:02:05 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > Yes, they control how you use THEIR stuff. But not how you use YOUR > stuff. The code you write is not their code. > They can control your stuff if you're modifying their stuff and passing it off as their stuff when it's not, or if you're using too much of their stuff in your stuff you're handing off to someone else. I would think. How did that Oracle lawsuit turn out over Android Java? If you're only using it in your own house I would think the only reason anyone should care if you modify their software is if you ask them to support it. I wouldn't think anyone would normally give someone else a JRE much less a modified version of a JRE, if you can't install it for them you'd just send them a link to the official host of the installers, but it's possible. It's also possible you send them custom Java jars that overload or override the intended functionality of the official JREs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 14:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8fgua$okm$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #36366 |
On 2/20/2017 11:45 AM, Eric Douglas wrote: > On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 11:02:05 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> Yes, they control how you use THEIR stuff. But not how you use YOUR >> stuff. The code you write is not their code. >> > > They can control your stuff if you're modifying their stuff and passing it off as their stuff when it's not, or if you're using too much of their stuff in your stuff you're handing off to someone else. I would think. How did that Oracle lawsuit turn out over Android Java? If you're only using it in your own house I would think the only reason anyone should care if you modify their software is if you ask them to support it. > No one is talking about modifying their stuff. We are talking about creating your own class from scratch. And the Android Java case is completely unrelated because no one is creating a jre here. > I wouldn't think anyone would normally give someone else a JRE much less a modified version of a JRE, if you can't install it for them you'd just send them a link to the official host of the installers, but it's possible. It's also possible you send them custom Java jars that overload or override the intended functionality of the official JREs. > No one is talking about giving out a JRE - modified or not. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 12:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d17bf2f-a3d0-44f1-8425-867003fa9e6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36369 |
On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 2:46:10 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > No one is talking about modifying their stuff. We are talking about > creating your own class from scratch. And the Android Java case is > completely unrelated because no one is creating a jre here. > > > No one is talking about giving out a JRE - modified or not. > No one said you're creating a JRE. Even if you aren't distributing the JRE you are responsible for it if you distribute Java which can affect the functionality of the JRE. It's like you're saying the car manufacturer shouldn't care if you resell one of their cars with something over the steering wheel which blocks their air bag. You didn't create the car from scratch, you didn't disassemble it, but you messed with it's functionality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 16:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8fn3g$hg5$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #36372 |
On 2/20/2017 3:23 PM, Eric Douglas wrote: > On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 2:46:10 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> No one is talking about modifying their stuff. We are talking about >> creating your own class from scratch. And the Android Java case is >> completely unrelated because no one is creating a jre here. >> >> >> No one is talking about giving out a JRE - modified or not. >> > > No one said you're creating a JRE. Even if you aren't distributing the JRE you are responsible for it if you distribute Java which can affect the functionality of the JRE. It's like you're saying the car manufacturer shouldn't care if you resell one of their cars with something over the steering wheel which blocks their air bag. You didn't create the car from scratch, you didn't disassemble it, but you messed with it's functionality. > That still isn't a violation of the copyright. There is nothing in copyright law which prevents inserting your own code into a system, even if it does change the operation of the system. For instance - that's how the windows remote control not from Microsoft apps work - they insert code in front of the system libraries and intercept calls. And if that were illegal, you can be sure Microsoft would be all over it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 11:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8f787$1ahu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36364 |
On 2/20/2017 11:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 2/20/2017 10:25 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 2/20/2017 8:39 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> And where does it say adding your own class is a modified version of >>> Oracle's runtime environment? It doesn't - because you are not >>> modifying their runtime environment. >>> >>> What if you called it arne.String? Is that OK? If so, then why not >>> java.lang.String? Neither Oracle nor anyone else can control what you >>> call your classes. >> >> There is no license problem creating a java.lang.String class. >> >> But there is a problem creating a runtime environment with that >> class combined with Oracle's stuff. >> > > Who said anything about creating a runtime environment with that class > combined with Oracle's stuff? I sure didn't. Only you did. The discussion is about a custom java.lang.String and the rest of Java library from Oarcle. >> Remember the context. Stefan is writing a Java application >> using java.lang.String. The application is intended to run >> in a standard Java runtime environment. He is concerned that >> somebody else will setup a runtime environment with >> a custom java.lang.String (and Oracle's stuff). >> > > And he can't stop that. Such is the world of programming. Once the > code leaves your hands, you have no control over what someone might do > with it. He can not stop that. The legal dispute will be between Oracle and whoever setup the modified runtime environment. >>> Nope. The class you add is in your own code, not the JRE. The JRE has >>> not been modified. >> >> The class has been made part of the runtime environment the >> Java application is executing in. > > Or included ahead of the JRE in the classpath. No. That does not work. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 14:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8fgv9$okm$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #36367 |
On 2/20/2017 11:58 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 2/20/2017 11:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 2/20/2017 10:25 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 2/20/2017 8:39 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> And where does it say adding your own class is a modified version of >>>> Oracle's runtime environment? It doesn't - because you are not >>>> modifying their runtime environment. >>>> >>>> What if you called it arne.String? Is that OK? If so, then why not >>>> java.lang.String? Neither Oracle nor anyone else can control what you >>>> call your classes. >>> >>> There is no license problem creating a java.lang.String class. >>> >>> But there is a problem creating a runtime environment with that >>> class combined with Oracle's stuff. >>> >> >> Who said anything about creating a runtime environment with that class >> combined with Oracle's stuff? I sure didn't. Only you did. > > The discussion is about a custom java.lang.String and the rest > of Java library from Oarcle. > >>> Remember the context. Stefan is writing a Java application >>> using java.lang.String. The application is intended to run >>> in a standard Java runtime environment. He is concerned that >>> somebody else will setup a runtime environment with >>> a custom java.lang.String (and Oracle's stuff). >>> >> >> And he can't stop that. Such is the world of programming. Once the >> code leaves your hands, you have no control over what someone might do >> with it. > > He can not stop that. > > The legal dispute will be between Oracle and whoever setup > the modified runtime environment. > >>>> Nope. The class you add is in your own code, not the JRE. The JRE has >>>> not been modified. >>> >>> The class has been made part of the runtime environment the >>> Java application is executing in. >> >> Or included ahead of the JRE in the classpath. > > No. > > That does not work. > > Arne > > Are you sure? Have you tried it? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 15:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8fkgg$60v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36370 |
On 2/20/2017 2:46 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 2/20/2017 11:58 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 2/20/2017 11:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 2/20/2017 10:25 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> The class has been made part of the runtime environment the >>>> Java application is executing in. >>> >>> Or included ahead of the JRE in the classpath. >> >> No. >> >> That does not work. > > Are you sure? Have you tried it? Yes. I am sure. java.lang.String gets loaded by the bootstrap classloader not the application classloader. And java.lang is a sealed package. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 15:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8fl1g$6q7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36373 |
On 2/20/2017 3:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 2/20/2017 2:46 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 2/20/2017 11:58 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 2/20/2017 11:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 2/20/2017 10:25 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> The class has been made part of the runtime environment the >>>>> Java application is executing in. >>>> >>>> Or included ahead of the JRE in the classpath. >>> >>> No. >>> >>> That does not work. >> >> Are you sure? Have you tried it? > > Yes. I am sure. > > java.lang.String gets loaded by the bootstrap classloader > not the application classloader. > > And java.lang is a sealed package. And even though those topics are slightly complex, then it should be rather obvious that it cannot work. If it did work then any applet could replace the security manager by including a replacement class with the applet. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 20:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8g55t$un4$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #36375 |
On 2/20/2017 3:54 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 2/20/2017 3:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 2/20/2017 2:46 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 2/20/2017 11:58 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 2/20/2017 11:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 2/20/2017 10:25 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> The class has been made part of the runtime environment the >>>>>> Java application is executing in. >>>>> >>>>> Or included ahead of the JRE in the classpath. >>>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>> That does not work. >>> >>> Are you sure? Have you tried it? >> >> Yes. I am sure. >> >> java.lang.String gets loaded by the bootstrap classloader >> not the application classloader. >> >> And java.lang is a sealed package. > > And even though those topics are slightly complex, then > it should be rather obvious that it cannot work. If it > did work then any applet could replace the security manager > by including a replacement class with the applet. > > Arne > > > So you're saying there's no way to change the environment such that a user class is loaded before the JRE? Saying the applet could replace the security manager is a non-starter. An applet cannot change the environment under which it runs - so that's not even a valid argument (as any you have shown so far is). -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 09:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8c962$5q3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36332 |
On 2/19/2017 5:42 AM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote: > Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>> Joerg Meier wrote: >>>> lewbloch wrote: >>>>> Anyone who puts classes in `java.lang....` like that is evil and >>>>> breaking the law. >>>> What law ? > > Trademark and copyright law. I think that depends a lot on what you use it for and what Java implementation. If you distribute it and call it Java then it is a violation of trademark. If it is Oracle Java then the license prohibits it. Not sure it is that relevant though. The context was malicious usage and people involved in that may not care much about those laws. >> I'm too lazy to check if it's relevant for java.lang, but in principle >> it's possible to "seal" a package, and then it's against the java >> compiler's "law" to add or replace classes in it. Maybe, the Navy >> Seals will come to arrest threspassers [sic]. > > More like Oracle's lawyers. If it is Oracle Java. >> Anyway, that's not the point of a few posts upthread, where the >> point was about a scenario of someone messing with the JVM itself, >> to get their own java.lang.String dummy in, e.g. to troll some 3rd- >> party closed-source code. People with that agenda are not likely >> to care about laws (might even be a case of DMCA-violation for those >> who live where it matters - so much for "What law?"). > > As far as I know, not being a lawyer, most countries respect the > trademark and copyright laws that protect the use of `java.lang` > and `javax.lang` packages. Those laws apply practically universally. But it happens that laws get broken. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 14:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8caul$mo4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36334 |
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:13:23 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > If it is Oracle Java. > Who owns Open Java these days? I thought I'd heard that Oracle had taken it over, and certainly there's an Oracle logo on the OpenJava website's main page. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 10:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8ccjp$b9u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36337 |
On 2/19/2017 9:43 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:13:23 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> If it is Oracle Java. >> > Who owns Open Java these days? I thought I'd heard that Oracle had taken > it over, and certainly there's an Oracle logo on the OpenJava website's > main page. Oracle owns Oracle Java, Java trademark etc.. Oracle chairs JCP and "runs" (supply people for) OpenJDK project. Oracle Java and OpenJDK supposedly share 99.99% of code. But license wise Oracle Java and OpenJDK are very different. Oracle Java is a commercial product under commercial license (free for many types of usage - but still a traditional commercial license). OpenJDK is an open source product available under GPL license (GPL with classpath exception for the library part). Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 15:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8cd3n$vb1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36338 |
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:11:54 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > But license wise Oracle Java and OpenJDK are very different. > Understood. > Oracle Java is a commercial product under commercial license (free for > many types of usage - but still a traditional commercial license). > > OpenJDK is an open source product available under GPL license (GPL with > classpath exception for the library part). > Thanks for the clarification. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 10:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8cetm$5gu$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #36334 |
On 2/19/2017 9:13 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 2/19/2017 5:42 AM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote: >> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>>> Joerg Meier wrote: >>>>> lewbloch wrote: >>>>>> Anyone who puts classes in `java.lang....` like that is evil and >>>>>> breaking the law. >>>>> What law ? >> >> Trademark and copyright law. > > I think that depends a lot on what you use it for > and what Java implementation. > > If you distribute it and call it Java then it is a > violation of trademark. > You can add your own code and not violate the trademark. It is done by every java programmer. > If it is Oracle Java then the license prohibits > it. > > Not sure it is that relevant though. The context was > malicious usage and people involved in that may > not care much about those laws. > >>> I'm too lazy to check if it's relevant for java.lang, but in principle >>> it's possible to "seal" a package, and then it's against the java >>> compiler's "law" to add or replace classes in it. Maybe, the Navy >>> Seals will come to arrest threspassers [sic]. >> >> More like Oracle's lawyers. > > If it is Oracle Java. > >>> Anyway, that's not the point of a few posts upthread, where the >>> point was about a scenario of someone messing with the JVM itself, >>> to get their own java.lang.String dummy in, e.g. to troll some 3rd- >>> party closed-source code. People with that agenda are not likely >>> to care about laws (might even be a case of DMCA-violation for those >>> who live where it matters - so much for "What law?"). >> >> As far as I know, not being a lawyer, most countries respect the >> trademark and copyright laws that protect the use of `java.lang` >> and `javax.lang` packages. > > Those laws apply practically universally. > > But it happens that laws get broken. > > Arne > -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 23:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8dr2f$q3p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36341 |
On 2/19/2017 10:53 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 2/19/2017 9:13 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 2/19/2017 5:42 AM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote: >>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>>>> Joerg Meier wrote: >>>>>> lewbloch wrote: >>>>>>> Anyone who puts classes in `java.lang....` like that is evil and >>>>>>> breaking the law. >>>>>> What law ? >>> >>> Trademark and copyright law. >> >> I think that depends a lot on what you use it for >> and what Java implementation. >> >> If you distribute it and call it Java then it is a >> violation of trademark. > > You can add your own code and not violate the trademark. It is done by > every java programmer. No. Java programmers distribute Java applications running in a Java runtime environment. Java implementation programmers distribute Java runtime environments. Distributing a runtime environment claiming to be Java that are not exactly Java is considered a violation of the Java trademark. See SUN vs MS. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 08:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8erlq$b37$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #36353 |
On 2/19/2017 11:24 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 2/19/2017 10:53 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 2/19/2017 9:13 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 2/19/2017 5:42 AM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>>>>> Joerg Meier wrote: >>>>>>> lewbloch wrote: >>>>>>>> Anyone who puts classes in `java.lang....` like that is evil and >>>>>>>> breaking the law. >>>>>>> What law ? >>>> >>>> Trademark and copyright law. >>> >>> I think that depends a lot on what you use it for >>> and what Java implementation. >>> >>> If you distribute it and call it Java then it is a >>> violation of trademark. >> >> You can add your own code and not violate the trademark. It is done by >> every java programmer. > > No. > Oh, so every Java programmer out there is violating trademarks? You're only digging your hole even deeper. > Java programmers distribute Java applications running in a > Java runtime environment. > No. Java programmers distribute Java applications as class and jar files. The user supplies the runtime environment that executes that code. > Java implementation programmers distribute Java runtime > environments. > That is correct. > Distributing a runtime environment claiming to be Java > that are not exactly Java is considered a violation > of the Java trademark. > Java programmers are not distributing the runtime environment. That's where your argument falls through. > See SUN vs MS. > Completely immaterial since Java programmers are not distributing a runtime environment. > Arne > It looks like your knowledge of java programming is as poor as your knowledge of the law. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 10:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8f17r$ugj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36358 |
On 2/20/2017 8:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 2/19/2017 11:24 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 2/19/2017 10:53 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 2/19/2017 9:13 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 2/19/2017 5:42 AM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>>>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >>>>>>> Joerg Meier wrote: >>>>>>>> lewbloch wrote: >>>>>>>>> Anyone who puts classes in `java.lang....` like that is evil and >>>>>>>>> breaking the law. >>>>>>>> What law ? >>>>> >>>>> Trademark and copyright law. >>>> >>>> I think that depends a lot on what you use it for >>>> and what Java implementation. >>>> >>>> If you distribute it and call it Java then it is a >>>> violation of trademark. >>> >>> You can add your own code and not violate the trademark. It is done by >>> every java programmer. >> >> No. >> > > Oh, so every Java programmer out there is violating trademarks? You're > only digging your hole even deeper. > >> Java programmers distribute Java applications running in a >> Java runtime environment. >> > > No. Java programmers distribute Java applications as class and jar > files. The user supplies the runtime environment that executes that code. Since classes and jar files are the application, then that is the same. >> Java implementation programmers distribute Java runtime >> environments. >> > > That is correct. > >> Distributing a runtime environment claiming to be Java >> that are not exactly Java is considered a violation >> of the Java trademark. >> > > Java programmers are not distributing the runtime environment. That's > where your argument falls through. You seem to have forgotten the context. The claim here was: >>>> If you distribute it and call it Java then it is a >>>> violation of trademark. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web