| |||||||||||
Sun releases Java under GPLv2
As has been heavily rumored for the last week or two: Sun Microsystems has
released its Java
implementation under version 2 of the GNU General Public License.
Some of the code is available now; the full development kit won't be out
until "the first half of 2007," however. There is an FAQ page
with more information.
(Log in to post comments)
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 8:59 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] 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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:20 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] 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.
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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:30 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I'm more interested in what less predictable people are saying. Like who? Can you link to an example interesting, unpredictable statement?
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 12:08 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] You should find some very interesting and original statements here:
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:34 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Maybe.
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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 18:41 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Misconceptions, yes.
But dry?
You didn't read far enough. ;-)
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:33 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] 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 Posted Nov 13, 2006 12:01 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Well, I've read the link now. (My original point was that I felt I pretty much knew what it would say beforehand.)
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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 14, 2006 5:27 UTC (Tue) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] 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.
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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 14, 2006 11:52 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Does it really matter? ;-)
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
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 10:03 UTC (Mon) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] I've apparently missed the "cleanse their souls" comment do you have a link?Somehow I doubt that unless he was joking.
Your comment is predictable and uninteresting and yet, there it is. Or is it that you don't mind being uninteresting and predictable?
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 12:08 UTC (Mon) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link] It's probably an allusion to the "KDE developers need to ask forgivenessfor all the GPL software they used when they weren't allowed to" of years ago.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 12:21 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] No.
+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. ;-)
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:03 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] 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 Posted Nov 14, 2006 2:48 UTC (Tue) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link] Of course, for that there would have to be any code from the FSF used inviolation. At that time, there was none.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 12:23 UTC (Mon) by jeremiah (guest, #1221) [Link] 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.
Richard Stallman unusually consistent Posted Nov 14, 2006 3:48 UTC (Tue) by nicku (subscriber, #777) [Link]
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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 15:22 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] 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.
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.
Stallman consistency Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:31 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] 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 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.
Stallman consistency Posted Nov 13, 2006 18:12 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] 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.
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.
Stallman consistency Posted Nov 13, 2006 20:27 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > confusion over what "free Java" would entail
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)
Stallman consistency Posted Nov 14, 2006 15:32 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] 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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:00 UTC (Mon) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link] 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 Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:11 UTC (Mon) by hilmi (guest, #41368) [Link] Java SE libraries are licensed with GPL2 + Classpath Exception. This meansyou can link and distribute non-GPL applications with GPL Java.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:20 UTC (Mon) by kjp (subscriber, #39639) [Link] You missed the 'license' section.
The classpath exception essentially makes the JVM LGPL for the purpose of distributing binary/commercial apps...
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 11:12 UTC (Mon) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link] 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 Posted Nov 13, 2006 11:38 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] 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 Posted Nov 13, 2006 11:39 UTC (Mon) by jcrigby000 (guest, #40881) [Link] Maybe for the same reason that glibc is gpl+exception. Don't ask me what that reason is however :).
Sun releases Java under GPLv2
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 13:04 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Maybe jcrigby meant libgcc. Compiled-language runtime libraries (whichglibc 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).
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 14, 2006 1:15 UTC (Tue) by zarcher (subscriber, #845) [Link] > I don't know why they didn't pick the LGPL either
From the FAQ, http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g8
Q:
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:00 UTC (Mon) by bradfitz (subscriber, #4378) [Link] Wow. Time to care about Java again. I'm really impressed that they went with the GPL. I took allthose rumors as pure craziness.
I haven't been a Java guy for ~10 years (that long?) but I'm excited. I can't wait to see all the
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 12:01 UTC (Mon) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Wow. Time to care about Java again.Yes it is, at least a little bit. 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...
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 14:12 UTC (Mon) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] 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.
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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 15:53 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Yeah, all good points. My notebook currently displays this, when "java -version" is run:
------------------------
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? ;-)
PR/BS filters Posted Nov 13, 2006 20:32 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > I tried to read the Sun press release, but my PR/BS filter> keeps crashing...
Would you care to file a proper bug report?
PR/BS filters Posted Nov 14, 2006 8:27 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Would you care to file a proper bug report?I wouldn't know where to file it. :-) 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."
PR/BS filters Posted Nov 14, 2006 12:28 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] That would be an AWESOME natural language algorithm. Please, somebody invent it. I'd use it daily.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:17 UTC (Mon) by hilmi (guest, #41368) [Link] This is wonderful news for free software developers and users. It'sespecially 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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:30 UTC (Mon) by danieldk (subscriber, #27876) [Link] 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.
Thanks Sun!
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 12:36 UTC (Mon) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] I second that. Can't wait for it to show up in Ubuntu. Thanks Sun!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.
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
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 17:55 UTC (Mon) by Mithrandir (subscriber, #3031) [Link] Is that the "Chinese" curse you're referring to there? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_...
If only they'd done this years earlier Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:36 UTC (Mon) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] 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.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.
If only they'd done this years earlier Posted Nov 13, 2006 14:26 UTC (Mon) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] >for Java to be useful in applets, you need to have it essentially universally deployed.
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.
If only they'd done this years earlier Posted Nov 13, 2006 15:38 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > As far as compatability testing -- is Sun releasing it's test suite?
Some information about that is here:
If only they'd done this years earlier Posted Nov 13, 2006 16:27 UTC (Mon) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] Okay, so they'll be releasing bits and pieces of it over time.
There's still a role for Mauve, then.
GNU Classpath, gcj, kaffe & friends? Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:57 UTC (Mon) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] I don't know where this puts the GNU Java workWe also don't know yet, but boy are we happy hackers now! :) Thanks for sharing Sun!
What if? Posted Nov 13, 2006 9:48 UTC (Mon) by shieldsd (subscriber, #20198) [Link] I've posted a speculative post on this topic:
http://daveshields.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/announcing-op...
What if? Posted Nov 13, 2006 11:47 UTC (Mon) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] 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...
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...
What if? Posted Nov 13, 2006 13:19 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] 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.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.
What if? Posted Nov 14, 2006 8:28 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] 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.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 13:42 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] WOOT
(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?
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 14:32 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Well, VM/CMS comes to mind, but that's not going to be GPL for a while yet... ;-)
Brilliant! Posted Nov 13, 2006 15:06 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Sun should be proud!
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 17:25 UTC (Mon) by juriise (subscriber, #38305) [Link] It is already included in Debian Testing
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:16 UTC (Mon) by juriise (subscriber, #38305) [Link] sorry about that - it was the old free-to-include-in-os version.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 13, 2006 19:38 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I'm tired of this Stallman bashing.
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.
Uncle Carpenter Posted Nov 13, 2006 23:56 UTC (Mon) by pr1268 (subscriber, #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? ;-)
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 14, 2006 12:08 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] 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%.
Stallman has been known to make mistakes before. But, I agree, the heat he took in the comments here was mostly unwarranted.
Sun releases Java under GPLv2 Posted Nov 14, 2006 5:11 UTC (Tue) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link] Now if only ARM could be convinced to release the documentation for Jazelle....
And as for hardware acceleration ... Posted Nov 14, 2006 18:23 UTC (Tue) by HalfMoon (guest, #3211) [Link] Now if only ARM could be convinced to release the documentation for Jazelle.... 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...
Non free code? Posted Nov 14, 2006 11:33 UTC (Tue) by errare_est (guest, #14275) [Link] From the FAQ:
Q:
Wonder what parts are cannot be freed...
Non free code? Posted Nov 15, 2006 2:03 UTC (Wed) by mcculls (guest, #34229) [Link] From memory, I think it's some of the colour/graphics classes.
Bottom line Posted Nov 14, 2006 16:02 UTC (Tue) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] The bottom line seems to be thus:
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.
|
|||||||||||