This content has been marked as final. Show 4 replies
sblantipodi wrote:Sun? Guess we will see it when (if) Sun lawyers figure out how to deal with strange TCK license terms invented by Aplix / Motorola(?).
as you can see from here MIDP3 is born,
when we will see a compliant SDK, ehm a Sun WTK?
Have you read the Vote Log at the link you quoted?
On 2009-11-23 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Abstain with the following comment:
Sun Microsystems vote to abstain follows from two very serious concerns we have with Aplix' proposed TCK license terms.
1. Aplix proposes to create a confusing hybrid of the Apache license with its letter agreement dictating asymmetrical "reciprocity." But the terms and conditions, and objectives, of the Apache license -- which is used by many Spec Lead companies for licensing out RIs and TCKs -- seem at odds with those of the letter agreement, and it is not at all clear whether the two agreements could be interpreted together in a way that makes any sense. Moreover, the license appears to
require carte blanche for any independent implementation governed by a TCK license offered to Aplix, without regard to its compatibility
status. This approach would both undermine compatibility and set up conflicts with the existing provisions of the JSPA concerning independent implementations.
2. The JSPA calls for the Spec Lead to make the TCK available for license on a standalone basis on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Subject to that standard, the Spec Lead is given considerable discretion in determining the particular terms under which it will license the TCK. This discretion reflects the community's longstanding view, and one debated at length by the entire EC, that the unique set of circumstances bearing on a particular TCK -- be they the method or costs of development, market conditions or other distinctive factors -- make it unwise to dictate the same terms for every TCK. But for the MIDP3 TCK, Aplix proposes to condition the availability of Aplix' license on Aplix' unilateral assertion of what terms cannot be included in every other TCK that is offered for license to Aplix, now and in the future. The asymmetry of this approach, tying one to the many, invites a multi-party, ongoing battle of the forms that holds the adoption of important Java technologies hostage to rectifying last week's particular grievance. It has implications far beyond just the MIDP3 TCK, and sets a very bad precedent.
I am programmer not a lawyer so I don't really know how Sun lawyers will handle that.
As for the phones, given that Motorola is a specification lead for JSR 271, I wouldn't be surprised to see it in their devices soon. By the way if memory serves they were the first to deliver MIDP 2 device.
Given Aplix involvement, I'd expect that there could be other MIDP3 phones based on their platform. Hm is it a coincidence that Aplix "injected" into a license that funny requirement sounding like they will get an access to (potentially competing) implementations from other vendors? +"...the license appears to require carte blanche for any independent implementation governed by a TCK license offered to Aplix, without regard to its compatibility status..."+
After a year, still no informations. We have some sheets of papers (the so called "specification"), a reference implementation, a test compatibility kit and no development tools. What is worse, we don't even the right to have some informations from Oracle on what happened to these technologies. We don't know if Java ME is still in development, considering the Mobile and Embedded website shows no sign of recent activity. Formerly Sun employees can't even blog anymore on these questions. Terrence Barr is disappeared. No website speaks or give informations on Java ME anymore. The world's most pervasive mobile techology left in the shadow. As if it has never existed.
Who said "Java is safe" after the Oracle acquisition? Probably someone who don't know that the word "Java", alone and without a context, means nothing.
By the way, a MIDP 3.0 phone doesn't serve anyone if we don't have an official SDK to develop with.
And what about JavaFX for Mobile? The last release is in "early access" state from 2009. Still, no informations on possible future implementations or updates to the current Windows Mobile release are given.
This is Oracle, "the information company". Without informations for its customers and developers.