5 ms·

Oracle controls the "Java" trademark. They can prevent OpenJDK (and any other implementations) from being able to call future major versions Java (or indeed JVM

Oracle controls the "Java" trademark. They can prevent OpenJDK (and any other implementations) from being able to call future major versions Java (or indeed JVM/JRE/JDK), simply by not publishing or not licensing future versions of the TCK. (Licensing terms for the Java trademark require an implementation to pass the TCK to be able to call itself Java.) Just removing the word Java from the OpenJDK sources and documentation would be a huge endeavor. All the standard tools ("java", "javac" etc) would have to be renamed. It might also require completely breaking backward compatibility, because APIs are now copyrighted and the Java standard library packages are named java.* (and probably there are class and method names mentioning "java" too). ETA: even ignoring copyrights on API, the trademark itself might stop you from publishing the not-Java standard library under the package java.*. ETA #2: other commenters say it's allowed to use a trademarked word as long as it's necessary for compatibility. But it's not allowed to actually say you're compatible. Apparently. I don't claim to understand this, but law is not require to make sense, so this could be true.

snuxoll 9y ago
Trademark and/or copyright can’t be used to block interoperability, see the Lexmark printer cartridge lawsuit where they embedded their logo into a MCU on the cartridge to try and block third-party cartridges. And while, yes, one circuit so far has decided that API’s are copywritable the argument of fair use is still up in the air (unless the appellate court has finally finished that case, I haven’t bothered to check). Also, Oracle and Sun before have continued to release OpenJDK under the GPLv2 (with classpath exception), giving an implicit license to the API with the worst case being an implementation needs to use the same license - it may not be able to call itself “Java” on the packaging but “compatible” probably.
- danarmak 9y ago
  Even if you ignore API copyrightability, it's impossible for a Java implementation to be compatible without using the word Java in very many places, including in the API. (Presumably trademark law applies to an API; I can't publish an API under the package name com.oracle, and similarly I can't publish under java.xxx). Also the whole tool system and the documentation of everything. Removing the word Java from all docs and sources isn't nearly as easy as removing the name RedHat and making CentOS. And even if you do that you won't be compatible because all the existing tools and programs expect you to be called java.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    As the parent poster explicitly said, trademarks cannot be used to block interoperability - since, as you say, impossible for a Java implementation to be compatible without using the word Java in very many places, then this means that you are allowed to use that word without permission. I'm not entirely sure if you're actually prohibited from publishing a new API under the name of com.oracle.* or java.* (IMHO you can, but I'm not sure), but even if you're prohibited to do so in the general case, you 100% can name a package com.oracle.java.everything without any permission if naming it so is actually needed for interoperability, that's a legitimate use of a trademark that its owner cannot restrict.
    - danarmak 9y ago
      > since, as you say, impossible for a Java implementation to be compatible without using the word Java in very many places, then this means that you are allowed to use that word without permission. If this is true, then why did the Apache Harmony project have to close because it couldn't get a TCK license and so couldn't call itself Java or even Java-compatible?
      - PeterisP 9y ago
        Using the word "Java" in the human naming, branding, advertising material, etc is not required for technical interoperability and follows the usual trademark restrictions. Getting actual interoperability is protected, calling yourself compatible is a bit trickier. Having a project branded "Magic Java Bean" with a class name com.mycompany.magicbean requires permission from Oracle, but having a project named "My alternative black magic drink SDK" with a classpath com.oracle.jdbc or java.something does not require any licence, if that particular name is required for interoperability. TCK, despite "compatibility" in it's name, isn't required for compatibility in the legal sense (it's required to demonstrate compatibility, not as an unalienable part of any component that happens to be compatible) so it can be licenced (or not) however Sun/Oracle wishes.
      - snuxoll 9y ago
        Harmony didn’t shutter purely because they couldn’t license the TCK, but without a acceptable license to the TCK they can’t say they are a certified Java SE or Java EE platform. This meant they had no way to prove or verify compatibility, but they still continued to advertise themselves as an open source Java runtime environment. Ultimately OpenJDK’s existence was what caused Harmony’s death, since the GPLv2 with Classpath Exception was a “good enough” license for the community (personal and commercial).
ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
right on. they pretty much "own" the word. they went as far as suing starbucks for using "java ..." for one of their ice cream flavors. at least they are not suing Indonesia. not yet anyway :)
- danarmak 9y ago
  > they went as far as suing starbucks for using "java ..." for one of their ice cream flavors. To clarify for other thread participants: that was an April 1st joke by InfoWorld. Oracle didn't really sue Starbucks. https://www.infoworld.com/article/2623819/misadventures/oracle-sues-starbucks-over-java-trademark.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/2623819/misadventures/orac...
kodablah 9y ago
> simply by not publishing or not licensing future versions of the TCK Yup, already happening. Implement a JVM and open source it and try to ask for a TCK. They don't allow non-openjdk-derivative open source JVM implementations to license the TCK. So one could argue the worst thing that they (and Sun) do is to disallow a competing open source version w/ the same test cases.
31h 9y ago
Just removing the word Java from the OpenJDK sources and documentation would be a huge endeavor. Is any project working to do this, ala Debian's IceWeasel?
fulafel 9y ago
Docker just did this but it didn't make a big splash.

snuxoll 9y ago

Trademark and/or copyright can’t be used to block interoperability, see the Lexmark printer cartridge lawsuit where they embedded their logo into a MCU on the cartridge to try and block third-party cartridges. And while, yes, one circuit so far has decided that API’s are copywritable the argument of fair use is still up in the air (unless the appellate court has finally finished that case, I haven’t bothered to check). Also, Oracle and Sun before have continued to release OpenJDK under the GPLv2 (with classpath exception), giving an implicit license to the API with the worst case being an implementation needs to use the same license - it may not be able to call itself “Java” on the packaging but “compatible” probably.

danarmak 9y ago
Even if you ignore API copyrightability, it's impossible for a Java implementation to be compatible without using the word Java in very many places, including in the API. (Presumably trademark law applies to an API; I can't publish an API under the package name com.oracle, and similarly I can't publish under java.xxx). Also the whole tool system and the documentation of everything. Removing the word Java from all docs and sources isn't nearly as easy as removing the name RedHat and making CentOS. And even if you do that you won't be compatible because all the existing tools and programs expect you to be called java.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  As the parent poster explicitly said, trademarks cannot be used to block interoperability - since, as you say, impossible for a Java implementation to be compatible without using the word Java in very many places, then this means that you are allowed to use that word without permission. I'm not entirely sure if you're actually prohibited from publishing a new API under the name of com.oracle.* or java.* (IMHO you can, but I'm not sure), but even if you're prohibited to do so in the general case, you 100% can name a package com.oracle.java.everything without any permission if naming it so is actually needed for interoperability, that's a legitimate use of a trademark that its owner cannot restrict.
  - danarmak 9y ago
    > since, as you say, impossible for a Java implementation to be compatible without using the word Java in very many places, then this means that you are allowed to use that word without permission. If this is true, then why did the Apache Harmony project have to close because it couldn't get a TCK license and so couldn't call itself Java or even Java-compatible?
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      Using the word "Java" in the human naming, branding, advertising material, etc is not required for technical interoperability and follows the usual trademark restrictions. Getting actual interoperability is protected, calling yourself compatible is a bit trickier. Having a project branded "Magic Java Bean" with a class name com.mycompany.magicbean requires permission from Oracle, but having a project named "My alternative black magic drink SDK" with a classpath com.oracle.jdbc or java.something does not require any licence, if that particular name is required for interoperability. TCK, despite "compatibility" in it's name, isn't required for compatibility in the legal sense (it's required to demonstrate compatibility, not as an unalienable part of any component that happens to be compatible) so it can be licenced (or not) however Sun/Oracle wishes.
    - snuxoll 9y ago
      Harmony didn’t shutter purely because they couldn’t license the TCK, but without a acceptable license to the TCK they can’t say they are a certified Java SE or Java EE platform. This meant they had no way to prove or verify compatibility, but they still continued to advertise themselves as an open source Java runtime environment. Ultimately OpenJDK’s existence was what caused Harmony’s death, since the GPLv2 with Classpath Exception was a “good enough” license for the community (personal and commercial).

ChemicalWarfare 9y ago

right on. they pretty much "own" the word. they went as far as suing starbucks for using "java ..." for one of their ice cream flavors. at least they are not suing Indonesia. not yet anyway :)

danarmak 9y ago
> they went as far as suing starbucks for using "java ..." for one of their ice cream flavors. To clarify for other thread participants: that was an April 1st joke by InfoWorld. Oracle didn't really sue Starbucks. https://www.infoworld.com/article/2623819/misadventures/oracle-sues-starbucks-over-java-trademark.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/2623819/misadventures/orac...

kodablah 9y ago

> simply by not publishing or not licensing future versions of the TCK Yup, already happening. Implement a JVM and open source it and try to ask for a TCK. They don't allow non-openjdk-derivative open source JVM implementations to license the TCK. So one could argue the worst thing that they (and Sun) do is to disallow a competing open source version w/ the same test cases.

31h 9y ago

Just removing the word Java from the OpenJDK sources and documentation would be a huge endeavor. Is any project working to do this, ala Debian's IceWeasel?

fulafel 9y ago

Docker just did this but it didn't make a big splash.