Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Study capabilities, not intentStudy capabilities, not intentPosted May 17, 2006 20:00 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)In reply to: Study capabilities, not intent by felixfix Parent article: Java becomes more distributable
Oh, absolutely -- I agree. But in this case, the licensing agreement
Scenario:
1. Sun says "Ooh, hey, Red Hat... you're not compatible because your
OK, I'll admit it -- I really don't like Sun, Solaris, Java or the people
Am I missing something? Is the compatibility clause a real cannon in the
(Log in to post comments)
Study capabilities, not intent Posted May 17, 2006 21:09 UTC (Wed) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] The hammer is potentially larger then you imply in that many vendors, Redhat and Novell for instance have enterprise editions that are in theory supposed to be stable for the multi year lifespan of a particular version. Swapping from one Java implamentation to another would basically break things badly in this case.
Study capabilities, not intent Posted May 17, 2006 23:54 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] So would changing kernel system call semantics.
Study capabilities, not intent Posted May 18, 2006 0:45 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] Exactly, rock meet hard place.
Study capabilities, not intent Posted May 18, 2006 1:02 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] While I don't think Java is anything close to irrelevant in the market,there is a lot more to Linux than Java. I think that if anything like that ever did happen, a patch author who wanted to change the system call semantics would have to prove he could do so without side effects.
The distributions would always have options in a crunch - hell, you could
So maybe the distributions carry their own aftermarket Java patches until
Study capabilities, not intent Posted May 18, 2006 1:37 UTC (Thu) by miah (guest, #639) [Link] RedHat has already been shipping Java, I'm not sure for how long, but I can easily install it on my RHEL systems by adding the proper channel. But guess what, its not Sun Java, its IBM, the IBM JDK, Bea WebLogic and other Java tools are already there. I'd be suprised if Redhat decided to go with Sun Java in RHEL 5.
A quick google turns up the following Press Release: http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2004/press_apps_s...
Study capabilities, not intent Posted May 18, 2006 6:36 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] "OK, I'll admit it -- I really don't like Sun, Solaris, Java or the peopleinvolved."
I too have generally got a bad vibe from Sun over Java and the CDDL. However, after hearing Simon Phipps here at Debconf talking about where they are going, where they have come from and why the licenses are the way they are, I have to say I am a lot more inclined to give them some slack than before. There are sun Java developers at Debconf, and Danese Cooper who wrote the CDDL. All of them appear to have an excellent understanding of the problems the Free Software community has with Sun and its licenses, and are doing a good job of explaining to the rest of the huge organisation how they need to change if they want us to stop being rude about them. But that is a really slow process for a multitude of reasons.
Now 3 good people in a 38,000 employee organisation does not guarantee anything, but it is clear to me that significant people are pushing in the right direction and Sun really is trying to be a proper friend of free software. The CDDL has been tweaked to make opensolaris free-er and more Debian-compatible - further tweakage is likely. The new Java licence is a (rather late) step in the right direction, and at least parts of Sun really do want to make it properly free (and realise that ultimately they have to if they don't want to become irrelevant). I think those people would benefit from our support (as well as constructive criticism).
So, Sun haters - there is genuine good will here; lets try to cultivate it.
|
|||||||||||