Re: Other class libraries

[dalibor topic <robilad@xxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2008/6/25 dalibor topic <robilad@xxxxxxxxx>:
>   
> Well I suppose the question is more 'how much OpenJDK is needed to be
> substantially derived?'
It's hard to draw a minimum requirement line, so I guess it'll be a 
case-by-case decision, when necessary.
I think a the majority of regular cases are obvious, though.
> Is the TCK license available for general consumption yet?
>   
Sure, it's been available since August 2007: 
http://*openjdk*.java.net/legal/*openjdk*-*tck*-*license*.pdf
> I'm slightly less perturbed by aph telling me that you do actually get
> source code.  The fact
> that a myth to the contrary could permeate to me just shows the
> problems with such NDA stuff... ;)
>   
You'll have to check out the GB meeting's notes for more specific 
details on the NDA stuff.
To say I'm not happy it's there would be an euphemism, but as far as TCK 
NDA stuff goes, it
has been clarified by Sun in the discussin with the GB and stripped down 
to a very specific form.

cheers,
dalibor topic