Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Posted Nov 13, 2006 15:59 UTC (Mon)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (21 responses)
RMS discussed this in an interview recently (when it was still speculation). I've transcribed that bit of the interview and stuck it in my blog. Altogether, this is great news.
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:20 UTC (Mon)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (15 responses)
Links to what RMS says are usually pretty uninteresting, since it's always so predictable.
I'm more interested in what less predictable people are saying.
Agreed that this is good news, though.
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:30 UTC (Mon)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (3 responses)
I'm more interested in what less predictable people are saying. Like who? Can you link to an example interesting, unpredictable statement?
Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:08 UTC (Mon)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (2 responses)
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16477
Posted Nov 13, 2006 23:34 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
But I've gone through 2-3 pages of comments and most of it revolves around misconceptions about the GPL. Dry stuff to say the least.
Posted Nov 14, 2006 1:41 UTC (Tue)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
But dry?
You didn't read far enough. ;-)
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:33 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:01 UTC (Mon)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (2 responses)
I'd say (now that I have read it) that I was right. Sun has now cleansed there souls and there is nothing wrong now. (Better late than never.) It's hard to see RMS disapproving once Java is put under his license, after all.
Posted Nov 14, 2006 12:27 UTC (Tue)
by liljencrantz (guest, #28458)
[Link] (1 responses)
Your conclusion: You where right about what RMS would say all along.
With such a liberal reading of 'right', I fail to see how anyone could ever be wrong.
Posted Nov 14, 2006 18:52 UTC (Tue)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
This topic was worth a post or two. But I can't see dragging this out.
I'd say "draw your own conclusions" and I'm fine with that.
-Steve Bergman
Posted Nov 13, 2006 17:03 UTC (Mon)
by jstAusr (guest, #27224)
[Link] (4 responses)
Your comment is predictable and uninteresting and yet, there it is. Or is it that you don't mind being uninteresting and predictable?
Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:08 UTC (Mon)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:21 UTC (Mon)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (2 responses)
+1 for making that connection, though. I considered the possibility that "cleanse their souls" might be interpretted that way, but decided that it was likely a safe enough wording.
"Forgiveness" was widely misinterpretted by the community back then. I misinterpretted it, myself, at first.
But it turned out to be a legal term that did not mean what some of us thought at first.
Consider my phrase "cleanse their souls" to be a bit hyperbolic. ;-)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 2:03 UTC (Tue)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 9:48 UTC (Tue)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link]
Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:23 UTC (Mon)
by jeremiah (subscriber, #1221)
[Link]
Posted Nov 14, 2006 10:48 UTC (Tue)
by nicku (guest, #777)
[Link]
Links to what RMS says are usually pretty uninteresting, since it's always so predictable. I'm more interested in what less predictable people are saying. I find surprisingly few people who are consistent; those who talk differently, depending on whom they are talking with, seem to me to be boringly common.
Posted Nov 13, 2006 22:22 UTC (Mon)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link] (4 responses)
I'm not entirely sure why RMS would care particularly about this, since he, of all people, should recognize that people can just create a free version of a platform with only proprietary implementations beforehand. I'm surprised that his reaction isn't "That's nice, but what we really want is a 'distribute verbatim' license to the TCKs, because that's the issue with Free access to the Java brand."
Note that modified versions can't be called Java or use the logo (the cup and steam), unless they have been tested by programs that aren't freely distributable. The trademark use is completely appropriate if the modification changes comformance (either intentionally or accidentally), but it would be good to be able to get modified versions certified without a lot of expense and hassle when they are actually comformant.
Posted Nov 13, 2006 23:31 UTC (Mon)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (3 responses)
Stallman is always very explicit that "intellectual property" is not a precise term; copyrights, brands, patents, etc. must be dealt with independently. Furthermore, he never worries about access to brands, or limited access to artwork; it is mostly code that his writings are about -- and patents in so far as they limit distribution and use of code. The reason is that software is functional, it does things; but you can call your software a different name or stick a different logo, and it will behave the same. Besides, brands are a legitimate way to protect the integrity of your product, even if it's free software. I think that specifications lie on the "don't care" side of the fence; you can specify whatever you want, that we will implement what we like.
When we asked for "free Java", many people confused "free specification of the language" with "free implementation of the virtual machine and class libraries". The Sun claque screamed about the perils of Java language fragmentation; the free software fanclub replied that we only wanted a free implementation.
Let Sun choose what "Java" stands for; if necessary, we shall call our version "Gnava" or whatever, just as Ghostscript is a free implementation of Postscript and we all live happily ever after. But now the free implementation does not need to play catch-up incessantly with the growing number of Java-related specifications. Even more importantly, it does not need to carry all the dead weight -- AWT, Swing, Java logging or the obnoxious decisions to bundle the complete Xerces and Xalan. We can build a slim profile server-side Java, download components as needed or even add our own libraries.
Now, we all have what we want. This move is both cheaper and more effective than the JCP, JSR's and related "community" efforts to define the language and the extensions, so we can regret that it was not done before. On the other hand, we can rejoice in the fact that the moment has finally come. Java and free software are meant to be just as Unix and GNU were; this is a great day.
Posted Nov 14, 2006 1:12 UTC (Tue)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link] (2 responses)
There's the futher confusion that we didn't ask for a free UNIX; he just wrote one. Then asking Sun for a free Java is confusing, because the only barrier Sun places to just writing your own Java is the brand license, and there's no obvious reason to ask for a free Java implementation from Sun rather than from, say, IBM.
I think he also cares about specifications; it's not important that they be modifiable (in fact, they're most useful when not even the owner may modify them, by policy), but they have to be available under terms that don't restrict distribution or implementation. I.e., we don't have to be allowed to specify what we want, but we need to be able to discuss what programs are going to expect our implementation to do. That's one reason to want to TCKs: so that we can tell that Gnava behaves as JBoss and Eclipse expect, assuming they're looking for a Java-specification-compliant platform.
Today is clearly a good day for free Java, because there's now a (mostly) complete GPL Java implementation known (by reputation) to be fully-compliant. But I wouldn't call it that revolutionary without the TCKs. For example, the obvious thing to do is built it for your favorite unsupported architecture. But hotspot is producing and running native code, which is going to be a problem if your arm JVM is generating and running x86 machine code. So that needs to be written, but then it's impossible to tell if it's perfectly correct without the TCK to test it. I don't see today's release as being fundamentally any more significant than if Classpath were to have completed their implementation and someone with the TCKs reported that it passed.
Posted Nov 14, 2006 3:27 UTC (Tue)
by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
[Link]
Go and re-read the transcript. The interview took place before the
> talking about this particular implementation as being somehow more
He's not talking about this implementation when he says "SUN should have
Your point about the specification (which is already freely available)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 22:32 UTC (Tue)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:00 UTC (Mon)
by rvfh (guest, #31018)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:11 UTC (Mon)
by hilmi (guest, #41368)
[Link]
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:20 UTC (Mon)
by kjp (guest, #39639)
[Link] (6 responses)
The classpath exception essentially makes the JVM LGPL for the purpose of distributing binary/commercial apps...
Posted Nov 13, 2006 18:12 UTC (Mon)
by ajross (guest, #4563)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Nov 13, 2006 18:38 UTC (Mon)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link]
Posted Nov 13, 2006 18:39 UTC (Mon)
by jcrigby000 (subscriber, #40881)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:25 UTC (Mon)
by jeroen (guest, #12372)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 13, 2006 20:04 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Nov 14, 2006 8:15 UTC (Tue)
by zarcher (subscriber, #845)
[Link]
From the FAQ, http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g8
Q:
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:00 UTC (Mon)
by bradfitz (subscriber, #4378)
[Link] (6 responses)
I haven't been a Java guy for ~10 years (that long?) but I'm excited. I can't wait to see all the
Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:01 UTC (Mon)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (5 responses)
Hopefully someone will publish a short, concise article about the implications of all this. I tried to read the Sun press release, but my PR/BS filter keeps crashing...
Posted Nov 13, 2006 21:12 UTC (Mon)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link] (1 responses)
It also makes possible (at least from a license standpoint) tighter integration of the JVM with the kernel, or kernel optimizatons to support the JVM, to improve Java performance. Whether the kernel devs think this is a good idea or not is another issue.
Posted Nov 13, 2006 22:53 UTC (Mon)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
------------------------
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
I'm hoping that in the future this will be replaced by something like:
------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Hey, one can dream, right? ;-)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 3:32 UTC (Tue)
by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
[Link] (2 responses)
Would you care to file a proper bug report?
Posted Nov 14, 2006 15:27 UTC (Tue)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (1 responses)
Every press release I've ever read is the same: "[company name] is proud to announce blah blah blah..." After a few seconds I realize that my attention has drifted, so I start over, but a few second later I'm back to "blah blah blah." Since press releases are so much the same, I wonder if one couldn't come up with a heuristic algorithm to filter out all the crap. For example, one would a PR as input, the the program would output something like "Sun releases Java SE, ME, and EE under the GPL, version 2."
Posted Nov 14, 2006 19:28 UTC (Tue)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:17 UTC (Mon)
by hilmi (guest, #41368)
[Link]
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:30 UTC (Mon)
by danieldk (subscriber, #27876)
[Link] (2 responses)
Thanks Sun!
Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:36 UTC (Mon)
by gravious (guest, #7662)
[Link] (1 responses)
This URL has just got to bring a smile to even the grumpiest of FOSS peeps :) https://openjdk.dev.java.net/source/browse/openjdk/compil...
regards, Anto
Posted Nov 14, 2006 0:55 UTC (Tue)
by Mithrandir (guest, #3031)
[Link]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_...
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:36 UTC (Mon)
by dwheeler (guest, #1216)
[Link] (4 responses)
Nevertheless, I'm DELIGHTED that Sun did this. I don't know where this puts the GNU Java work, but in some sense it doesn't matter. Sun would never have released its Java implementation until gcj etc. created a plausible alternative, and now we have the delightful circumstance in which we have several high-quality Java implementations.
Posted Nov 13, 2006 21:26 UTC (Mon)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link] (2 responses)
And now there's really no reason for it not to be, at least on most platforms. Even if Microsoft chooses not to, there's no reason (well, beyond MSFT strong-arm tactics) for OEMs not to add it on. Certainly any Linux distro would include it.
> I don't know where this puts the GNU Java work,
I don't think there'll be a negative impact on gcj. That's a compile-to-native option that Sun doesn't offer. The opening of Sun's class library will help it.
The GNU Classpath project would seem to be rendered redundant, but I think what we might see is some merging of the Sun and Gnu class libraries to create a "best of both worlds" -- in some cases Sun's implementations are better, in other cases Gnu's. If there are issues with merging Gnu's code into the Sun project (eg Sun wants to be able to dual-license), then Gnu classpath sticks around and may become the favored choice.
As far as compatability testing -- is Sun releasing it's test suite? It still needs to retain control of it for trademark issues.
Posted Nov 13, 2006 22:38 UTC (Mon)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (1 responses)
Some information about that is here:
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#i8
Posted Nov 13, 2006 23:27 UTC (Mon)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link]
There's still a role for Mauve, then.
Posted Nov 14, 2006 2:57 UTC (Tue)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link]
We also don't know yet, but boy are we happy hackers now! :) Thanks for sharing Sun!
Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:48 UTC (Mon)
by shieldsd (guest, #20198)
[Link] (3 responses)
http://daveshields.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/announcing-op...
Posted Nov 13, 2006 18:47 UTC (Mon)
by atai (subscriber, #10977)
[Link] (2 responses)
For example, see all IBM's donations to the ASF. How many of them are still valuable as proprietary software? Will IBM open-source DB2 or Websphere under the Apache license? If IBM does open source them, today, then the GPL may be a more likely license than the Apache license or the BSD license. However, if IBM does so in ten years, then the latter licenses will be more likely...
Posted Nov 13, 2006 20:19 UTC (Mon)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link] (1 responses)
Basically, GPL is good for stimulating improvement, and more permissive licenses are good for spreading the technology quickly in its present form. Note that the later can likely lead to forks, especially if the technology is not backed by an official standard. GPL is more fork resistant since all good bits can be recombined.
Sun is thinking long term and wants to avoid forks. Java is not hardware specific by design. Hence the choice.
Posted Nov 14, 2006 15:28 UTC (Tue)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link]
Posted Nov 13, 2006 20:42 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
(for non-gamers that means: We Own Other Team)
Free and open source software is winning. Now there is no doubt about what. What is more 'enterprise' then Java?
Posted Nov 13, 2006 21:32 UTC (Mon)
by allesfresser (guest, #216)
[Link]
Posted Nov 13, 2006 22:06 UTC (Mon)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
Posted Nov 14, 2006 0:25 UTC (Tue)
by juriise (guest, #38305)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 2:16 UTC (Tue)
by juriise (guest, #38305)
[Link]
Posted Nov 14, 2006 2:38 UTC (Tue)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (2 responses)
My uncle bought a condo in a gated community. He's a carpenter all his life. They said he could make changes, but they won't give him the blueprints to his place. He's quite disappointed.
Without people like Stallman, we whould have nothing.
I have nothing more to say on this subject.
Posted Nov 14, 2006 6:56 UTC (Tue)
by pr1268 (guest, #24648)
[Link]
I suppose fellow residents at your Uncle's condo wouldn't take too kindly to him attempting to reverse-engineer the place in order to make improvements, would they? ;-)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 19:08 UTC (Tue)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Stallman has been known to make mistakes before. But, I agree, the heat he took in the comments here was mostly unwarranted.
Posted Nov 14, 2006 12:11 UTC (Tue)
by tao (subscriber, #17563)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 1:23 UTC (Wed)
by HalfMoon (guest, #3211)
[Link]
Especially considering the main target platform for the "phoneME"
package is the Perseus2 ("P2") board with an OMAP 730. That's an ARM926ejs based CPU, which includes that Java acceleration! (So does the OMAP 1711 in the Nokia770, but that's not a development board.)
I'd like to know the truth here, since when I've asked ARM folk
(at tradeshows) why Jazelle docs aren't publicly available, they have
consistently said that Sun's licensing is to blame.
But there IS an alternative. Atmel's AVR32 has a Java accelerator
along the same lines as Jazelle ... and just a couple weeks ago
they finally released documentation on the Java support. (I did notice one
missing section re threading though...) So if you can cope with the fact that AVR32 is nowhere near as mature as ARM, you can at least build systems that run Linux (2.6.19 includes basic AVR32 support), DSP-ish functionality, and hardware-accelerated Java ... on a much more accessible development platform (buy at digikey.com).
I wonder how long it will take before the J2ME on AVR32 includes that hardware acceleration...
Posted Nov 14, 2006 18:33 UTC (Tue)
by errare_est (guest, #14275)
[Link] (1 responses)
Q:
Wonder what parts are cannot be freed...
Posted Nov 15, 2006 9:03 UTC (Wed)
by mcculls (guest, #34229)
[Link]
Posted Nov 14, 2006 23:02 UTC (Tue)
by jmorris42 (guest, #2203)
[Link]
This is indeed a pigs flying level event. an almost unprecedented reversal of Sun's position. But as a practical matter it won't make much difference until at least next year, probably second half.
So lets look where that puts things in terms of deployment. FC7 is probably out so make it FC8. RHEL5 is out, so RHEL6 would be the earliest for the RH side of the commercial world, but then they already get the IBM version on their Extras CD. Debian will still have the Free (as in beer) version they adopted (to a fair amount of controversy) earlier but this Free version certainly won't make it into Etch. Don't follow SuSE's release schedule but you can bet it will be at least one major release before they can add it.
Bottom line is it is a great portent for the future but the full impact probably won't be felt before 2008 at the earliest.
The big unanswered question is just what impact will this have? Something this big is almost certain to HAVE an impact, but where? Will we see major new components being developed in Java? Will GNOME dump mono and start rewriting the major components, like has been threatened for years? Or will a whole new project spring up?
And after reading the Sun FAQ it is clear we won't be calling it Java so what will it's Free name be? Sigh.... IceWeasel all over again.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Haven't read the link... but let me guess. Richard says that unfree software is unethical. Sun needs to open the code to cleanse their souls, etc.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Sun releases Java under GPLv2
You should find some very interesting and original statements here:Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Maybe.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Misconceptions, yes. Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Actually if you read the link he said that if they open it 'there's nothing wrong anymore'. i.e., pretty much the opposite of what you thought :)Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Well, I've read the link now. (My original point was that I felt I pretty much knew what it would say beforehand.)Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Your original post states that without RTFA, you know beforehand that RMS will go on about how Sun still needs to cleanse their souls for ever developing non-free software, and then it turns out that RMS said that he is happy with Sun and that they are doing nothing wrong anymore.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Does it really matter? ;-)Sun releases Java under GPLv2
I've apparently missed the "cleanse their souls" comment do you have a link?Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Somehow I doubt that unless he was joking.
It's probably an allusion to the "KDE developers need to ask forgiveness Sun releases Java under GPLv2
for all the GPL software they used when they weren't allowed to" of years
ago.
No.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
RMS's statement on "forgiveness" was entirely correct. Read the GPL (v2): by violating it, the violator forfeits his/her license to copy, modify, or distribute the violated code. As copyright holder, RMS was saying that he forgave any such violations, but that the offenders might have to seek forgiveness of others. This language was widely resented by those who didn't understand that there were legal consequences; RMS was asking that these legal consequences be waived, which was hardly a hostile act.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Of course, for that there would have to be any code from the FSF used in Sun releases Java under GPLv2
violation. At that time, there was none.
Yeah, we know what RMS is going to say, in general, but I still like hearing the words directly from his mouth. Gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside. I'd also like to hear Linus's comments on it as well, not that they would be particually relevent to the subject.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Richard Stallman unusually consistent
I find it strange that RMS carelessly mixes talking about "Java" and Sun's implementations, given how precise he is about other things. Nothing has actually changed about the licensing of "Java", as the FAQ explains in the section about the Java brand. It is somewhat more than a coincidence, but not fundamentally important, that this implementation is owned by the same entity that owns the trademarks.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Maybe I have been reading Stallman's writings for too long, but I think I understand his ideas. I will indulge in a bit of cheap exegesis.
Stallman consistency
It's particularly in light of "intellectual property" being an unusably vague term that I find his use of "Java" surprising, especially with the confusion over what "free Java" would entail. It seems to me oddly careless of him not to be talking about "a free Java implementation", but rather talking about this particular implementation as being somehow more inherently "Java" than others.Stallman consistency
> confusion over what "free Java" would entailStallman consistency
announcement and does not once mention trademarks and language
definitions. It's about software. Stallman is not in the least
ambiguous: "if SUN's Java implementation becomes free software, it will
be a part of our community".
> inherently "Java" than others.
made Java free software before". He's talking about what Sun came up
with many years ago, which was unambiguously the first and only Java
implementation. The trademark, standardisation and validation business
came about through historical accident after Microsoft's co-optation of
code it licensed from Sun. If Sun had licenced Java to MS under the GPL
in the first place then embrace-and-extend would have been quite
impossible.
and compliance test suites (which are not) is absolutely correct. I
think the interview didn't cover this issue at all. I hope (and presume)
that Sun will release its TCK in some acceptable form soon. Probably not
GPL, but you never know.
Stallman consistency
There's the futher confusion that we didn't ask for a free UNIX; he just wrote one.
Maybe we didn't ask -- as long as proprietary software was just starting to be, and universities could get liberal terms from AT&T, the necessity for a free Unix was not so concerning. The moment people started to care BSD spread like wildfire.
I think he also cares about specifications; [...] That's one reason to want to TCKs: so that we can tell that Gnava behaves as JBoss and Eclipse expect [...]
Maybe, and your argumentation seems quite sensible to me, but I haven't seen Stallman ask for freely distributable specifications. Maybe he hasn't thought this aspect through. Somehow I doubt it: the TCKs are mostly important for certification, because actual compliance can be measured in different ways such as following the spec or even reverse engineering. If Red Hat or another deep-pocketed organization wants to certify their own customized version of the JVM they can pay for it. For most of us, complying with the freely available spec (and behaving like Sun's implementation) might be enough, if we are to judge by other free software programs.
I don't see today's release as being fundamentally any more significant than if Classpath were to have completed their implementation and someone with the TCKs reported that it passed.
Make it "if Classpath passed current TCKs and we had an assurance that it would pass any future TCKs as soon as possible", which would be no small feat in itself.
Looks to me like the Trolltech way: GPL + commercial license for those
who want to produce proprietary software. Or did I miss something?
Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Java SE libraries are licensed with GPL2 + Classpath Exception. This means Sun releases Java under GPLv2
you can link and distribute non-GPL applications with GPL Java.
You missed the 'license' section.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
But this really isn't too surprising. The virtual machine is a program, and is under the GPL. The core libraries, being a platform, need a more permissive license. I don't know why they didn't pick the LGPL either, but as you point out this is the same for all practical purposes.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
The GPL+exception works better than the LGPL for embedded systems users, as it's hard to provide the user with a way to relink her ROM code as would be required by the LGPL.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Maybe for the same reason that glibc is gpl+exception. Don't ask me what that reason is however :).Sun releases Java under GPLv2
glibc is LGPL.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Maybe jcrigby meant libgcc. Compiled-language runtime libraries (which Sun releases Java under GPLv2
glibc isn't, not really) tend to be under GPL+exception or something
analogous (they pretty much have to be if the language is to gain traction
outside the pure-free-software world).
> I don't know why they didn't pick the LGPL eitherSun releases Java under GPLv2
Doesn't GPL v2 + Classpath exception offer very similar licensing terms to the LGPL? Why not use LGPL instead?
A:
Yes, from a practical perspective the Classpath exception establishes similar terms to LGPL. However, the Free software Java technology communities haven't chosen to use LGPL, and so we at Sun decided to follow their lead and use the Classpath exception.
Wow. Time to care about Java again. I'm really impressed that they went with the GPL. I took all Sun releases Java under GPLv2
those rumors as pure craziness.
integration opportunities.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Wow. Time to care about Java again.
Yes it is, at least a little bit.
One implication of this is that because it permits all Linux distros to include Java from the get-go, installation and management software can now be built with Java. Said software has been built with other languages in the past (eg Python) so I don't know how much difference this would really make.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Yeah, all good points. My notebook currently displays this, when "java -version" is run:Sun releases Java under GPLv2
java version "1.4.2"
gij (GNU libgcj) version 4.1.1 20061011 (Red Hat 4.1.1-30)
------------------------
java version "1.7.3"
gij (GNU libgcj) version 5.2.3 20081113 (Red Hat 5.2.3-25)
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.7.3_07-b01)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.7.3_07-b01, mixed mode, sharing)
Copyright (C) 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
------------------------
> I tried to read the Sun press release, but my PR/BS filterPR/BS filters
> keeps crashing...
PR/BS filters
Would you care to file a proper bug report?
I wouldn't know where to file it. :-)
That would be an AWESOME natural language algorithm. Please, somebody invent it. I'd use it daily.PR/BS filters
This is wonderful news for free software developers and users. It's Sun releases Java under GPLv2
especially meaningful after the MS-Novell agreement. I'd also like to
thank GNU Classpath project members for their heroic efforts and Sun
employees for making this wise and realistic choice.
GPLv2 + Classpath exception, pretty much all I could wish for :). Can't wait to see J2SE integrated in distributions, and ported to NetBSD and alike.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
I second that. Can't wait for it to show up in Ubuntu. Thanks Sun!Sun releases Java under GPLv2
May we live in interesting times. First Oracle makes a move on RedHat, then MS/Novell make sweet love and now Sun shares it crown jewels, whatever next..? ATI and Nvidia GPLv2 open source their drivers? :) Um... nah.
Is that the "Chinese" curse you're referring to there? ;)Sun releases Java under GPLv2
If only they'd done this years earlier. Java would have been MUCH more successful than it has been, but the licensing issues have bottled it up. That's particularly true for applets - it's no big deal to install Java on a single server, but for Java to be useful in applets, you need to have it essentially universally deployed.
If only they'd done this years earlier
>for Java to be useful in applets, you need to have it essentially universally deployed.If only they'd done this years earlier
> As far as compatability testing -- is Sun releasing it's test suite?If only they'd done this years earlier
Okay, so they'll be releasing bits and pieces of it over time.If only they'd done this years earlier
I don't know where this puts the GNU Java work
GNU Classpath, gcj, kaffe & friends?
I've posted a speculative post on this topic:What if?
Funny things is that, for software that has "high proprietary" values, like Java, the software is open-sourced/freed under the GPL license. For software that is low in such value, the software is often donated to the ASF under the Apache license... What if?
Nothing funny, it's quite natural. If a company cares about the software and plans further releases, it doesn't want its competitors using and improving the code without giving it back. If a company wants to spread the software as is (e.g because it works with certain hardware or requires the best processors, network switches etc), the software is released under a license that allows incorporation into proprietary code.
What if?
There are also patent implications -- the Apache license and GPL handle patents differently. The GPL patent clause is more weighted toward the interests of the upstream software author.
What if?
WOOTSun releases Java under GPLv2
Well, VM/CMS comes to mind, but that's not going to be GPL for a while yet... ;-)Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Sun should be proud!Brilliant!
It is already included in Debian TestingSun releases Java under GPLv2
sorry about that - it was the old free-to-include-in-os version.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
I'm tired of this Stallman bashing.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Uncle Carpenter
If your uncle needs blueprints to make the kinds of changes he has in mind, then I'm really glad I'm not living in the same complex as him. It's a CONDO. If your uncle wants to make structural changes then he needs to buy a structure that he personally owns 100%.Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Now if only ARM could be convinced to release the documentation for Jazelle....Sun releases Java under GPLv2
And as for hardware acceleration ...
Now if only ARM could be convinced to release the documentation for Jazelle....
From the FAQ:Non free code?
Will Sun's commercial JDK releases be built from the open-source code?
A:
Yes, for the most part. Since there's some encumbered code in the JDK, Sun will continue to use that code in commercial releases until it's replaced by fully-functional open-source alternatives.
From memory, I think it's some of the colour/graphics classes.Non free code?
The bottom line seems to be thus:Bottom line