LWN: Comments on "Apache project keeps pace with Java changes (ZDNet)"

licenses

robilad — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:14:09 +0000

Yes, the ASF is quite funny that way.

licenses

k8to — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:56:45 +0000

Well, we will have access now. It will be interesting to see if that code becomes available.

licenses

mikov — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:33:23 +0000

I am not so sure about that. IBM's JVM has a different JIT compiler,
different garbage collector. These are the bigger part of the JVM - the
rest is just the native implementation of parts of the Java libraries.

licenses

eru — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:02:22 +0000

Isn't IBM Java basically Sun Java + patches? Getting patches without
access to the program they patch is useless...

licenses

coriordan — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:33:12 +0000

I think the developers of free java systems would find that code helpful.

What's the reason for not releasing that minority as free software?

licenses

coriordan — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:02:40 +0000

I second this. "It's policy" is a terrible justification.

The GNU project recommends the GPL, but it also has the LGPL for certain situations, and RMS recommended a third-party licence (revised-BSD style) for the Ogg Vorbis project.

licenses

nim-nim — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:02:26 +0000

There's been a push to make an Apache-only Java stack this past years (launching Harmony instead of supporting gcj+classpath, Geronimo instead of supporting jboss or objectweb). The waste of effort they caused is incredible.

From the outside motivations are a mix of :
- rear-guard BSD vs GNU sentiment
- FUD-ing about customers not able to accept GPL/LGPL products (yes, that's why RHEL is such a commercial success)
- US vs the rest of the word sentiment (objectweb is european-centered)
- encouragement from big corps like IBM who'd like a codebase they can run with at any moment (presented as a "level field" ROTFL)

SUN actually fed this movement for years by releasing code to the Apache foundation and refusing to use the (L)GPL for its own products (OO.o doesn't count, was always perceived as an outsider)

I hope the SUN announcement puts an end to this. The Apache Foundation shamelessly used its visibility to bolster its own projects, suppressing awareness of other FLOSS Java efforts and FUD-ing them to death when it wasn't possible. (you'll note all the pro-Harmony statements carefully avoid even admitting the existence of all the non-apache FLOSS java projects)

Aside from all the other motivations to go GPL, the Apache Foundation is really not the right place if you want to build client-side apps (just too bigcorp & it-must-run-on-my-obsolete-legacy-unix-workstation oriented ; when inadequacy of obsolete-legacy-unix-workstation is admitted, replaced by a windows-is-the-only-interesting-desktop attitude worthy of the bad old xfree86 days). IMHO SUN realised recently MS was using .NET rich clients to push C# server-side, so it was time to put some Java in its Java Desktop. The obvious way to achieve this was to align licensing with the current most active FLOSS desktop efforts

licenses

khim — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:47:12 +0000

They don't have the right. Simple as that. Most of the code in IBM's JVM belong to Sun. IBM can release it's own code - but it's minority...

licenses

mikov — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:13:24 +0000

A friend said to me today: if IBM is so unhappy with Sun, why don't they
release their own JVM under a BSD or Apache license ??? IBM's statement is
utter hypocritical cr*p.

licenses

k8to — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:10:38 +0000

Oh dear, tea up the nose.

licenses

nix — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:25:58 +0000

I must say that `more inflexible and bureaucratic than the FSF' is not
exactly the most appealing characteristic of the ASF.

you are in a maze of twisty java-clone projects, all alike

mjw — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:59:11 +0000

Actually there are already 20-odd java-like projects :) But the twist here is that they are all specialisations of one kind or another based on the core GNU Classpath libraries and tools.

Strangely enough Harmony! was actually started by this same group of people as a way to also include the Apache group. Sadly then IBM walked in and it all took a different path. I wrote a guest article for LWN about that a while ago, Towards a free Java, explaining some of the difficulties faced back then and how the 20-odd projects came together around GNU Classpath over the years merging their code bases more and more. With a little analysis why our harmony effort back then failed to work out.

The consensus on Planet Classpath seems to be that we all would very much like to work together and colaborate with Sun on all this. Something made possible by Sun's very bold move to pick the GPL plus GNU Classpath exception for their OpenJDK project. Thanks for sharing Sun. That is what we call Harmony! :)

licenses

bojan — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:37:29 +0000

> Is it just me, or does this kind of statement take some chutzpah, considering that the Apache Harmony project itself chose, for reasons I never really understood, to use a license incompatible with that of the pre-existing Classpath project?

It is a policy of ASF to use only their own licence for all projects: http://www.apache.org/licenses/.

you are in a maze of twisty java-clone projects, all alike

JoeBuck — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:34:21 +0000

We had two separate Java projects in the GNU framework, gjc and Classpath, and managed to unite those (fortunately there wasn't that much overlap). We had IBM's Eclipse project, and the GNU folks and Eclipse project talked about how to unite all that code (which GPLv3 makes possible). And then there's this Apache thing, which I don't understand the justification for. And much of this will now be made moot by Sun's announcement (though they just want to do GPLv2, possibly raising another issue), unless the Apache people really, really want their own (under yet different terms).

Anyway, I guess four flavors of free Java beats 20-odd IRC front ends.

licenses

stevenj — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:28:47 +0000

IBM, which two years ago urged Sun to release Java as open-source software, on Monday sent out a statement expressing disappointment with Sun's move. Rather then start a new open-source Java project, IBM said it would have been preferable if Sun had contributed code to existing Apache projects, including Harmony, in which IBM is participating. IBM also said that if Sun had used the Apache license, it would be easier to share code from different projects.

Is it just me, or does this kind of statement take some chutzpah, considering that the Apache Harmony project itself chose, for reasons I never really understood, to use a license incompatible with that of the pre-existing Classpath project? Not to mention that Sun releasing their existing code is hardly the same as starting a "new" open-source Java.

Hopefully, once GPLv3 comes out this incompatiblity will be erased. (Classpath is under a "v2 or later" license, and Sun is the sole copyright holder of their Java code so they can update the license when v3 comes out if they wish.)