How are they squeezing dollars here? They don't seem to be demanding payment, or at least not directly.
I read the board notes. This appears to be a disagreement about trademarks and compatibility licensing. To be called "Java" you need to be compatible with the Java specs, and also have a trademark license. That's how they enforce that the platform can be reimplemented but it's seamless to users. Seems Eclipse Foundation doesn't like that.
I read the board notes. This appears to be a disagreement about trademarks and compatibility licensing. To be called "Java" you need to be compatible with the Java specs, and also have a trademark license. That's how they enforce that the platform can be reimplemented but it's seamless to users. Seems Eclipse Foundation doesn't like that.