Slashdot Log In
FSF, OpenOffice.org Team Reach Agreement on Java
Posted by
timothy
on Mon May 16, 2005 03:46 PM
from the detente dept.
from the detente dept.
Bruce Byfield points out his NewsForge (part of OSTG) article about something good coming out of the conflict over Java in OpenOffice.org. It begins "A dispute between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and OpenOffice.org (OOo) over the increased use of Java in the upcoming version 2.0 release of OOo is over
-- at least for now. The two groups have found a short-term solution, and are working together on
ways to keep the dispute from happening again." The story provides a decent background on why it matters, and shows a surprisingly conciliatory attitude on both sides.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Will this always happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
So it is only natural that they would be still using alot of java , not that i agree entierly with the decision to continue to build upon the java elements but just a little background as t
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the bad old days when the brand-new language "C" was owned by Bell Labs, and they claimed anything you wrote in C belonged to Bell?
Remember how long that was true? As measured in picoseconds?
There are no closed source languages. That's an urban legend. You can try to booby-trap a language, like MS tried to do to Java, but that won't work, either. You may recollect that MS failed in that effort, expensively(!).
It's almost impossible to encumber open source software by using proprietary tools. That's a self-serving tale told by the proprietary vendors, and false.
Parent
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
In essense, Java == C++ plus the C++ standard library plus Win32. It's simple to code portable C++ if you use only the C++ standard libraries, but the moment you start using Win32, you have a portability problem. Until something like WINElib makes the Win32 layer portable, any exclusive use of Win32 in a C++ project locks out Linux and other free OSes.
That's the problem. GNU/CLASSPATH has made outstanding progress lately, but it hasn't yet reimplemented all the Java libraries. It'll take some time before it does. Until then, using functions/classes that are not implemented in GNU/CLASSPATH will be a problem for any open source software.
Parent
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
Linus used Java in the kernel?! There I was thinking it was getting faster, and it was because he was rewriting Java code in C all along!
Seriously, the BitKeeper debate has nothing to do with this. He was given a free licence, which was then revoked, as was allowed by the terms of the licence. How is that like Java? If Sun went belly-up tomorrow and/or abandoned Java, I st
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
The concern was that OO.o was using proprietary extensions to Java which aren't well documented and are exclusive to Sun.
That being the case, Sun going belly-up isn't the issue. Sun going all SCO and announcing that from now on anything using their version of Java will have to pay $699 for a license is.
Parent
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Informative)
The FSF, Stallman explained, did not have a preference for other programming languages over Java. It simply wanted assurance that any Java code would be compatible with free implementations of Java. After discussion options with Carr, he suggested that the Free Software Foundation would concentrate on expanding the GCJ efforts
Yep. Conflict solved. OO.o can stay free of Sun's JVM if it wishes and GCJ gets some bugs exorcised. Everyone wins.
Parent
open source CPUs (Score:5, Interesting)
Here you go [opencores.org]. Check out the OpenRISC 1000 - I am guessing that it will be particularly interesting for you since the 1200 version has been used to demonstrate Linux. Of course the MIPS and Sparc clones can do so as well.
Transmeta was the closest, since Linus worked for them way back when.
Given that the native instruction set was top secret, I would say it was the least open source processor of all.
Parent
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
The folks at Sun did get to choose the tools, that's why they used Java. If the Free Software Foundation had chosen the tools then OO.org would probably use guile or some other Free Software tool.
The problem, of course, is that OO.org's new Java stuff didn't work with any of the Free Software JVMs. Now, that may not seem like a problem to you, but that's precisely the sort of thing that gets the folks at the Free Software Foundation worked up. So what did the FSF do? It looked into forking the OO.org code and replacing the Java dependencies with Free Software. The FSF hackers wanted a version of OO.org that they could use on a completely Free system, and they were willing to put in the work to make such a beast happen. The folks at Sun have a long history of dealing with the FSF, and they knew that the last thing that they wanted to see was a Java-free FSF fork of OO.org that would draw potential hackers away from their codebase. This is especially true considering the fact that distributions like Red Hat (and Fedora), Debian, and many others would almost certainly use the Free Software fork of OO.org by default. So Sun offered to cooperate more with the hackers working on running OO.org on gcj.
That's nothing more than straightforward diplomacy. Neither side got what they really wanted, but it was close enough that the two sides are willing to work together. The FSF would much rather have gcj be the default Java for OO.org, and it would like to see the documentation and everything else reflect the use of gcj and not Sun's proprietary Java, but that's not what the FSF is going to get. What the FSF is going to get is that Sun is going to include fixes that will allow you to use gcj into the main branch of OO.org. My guess is that Sun is going to do just enough for the FSF so that it isn't tempted to fork OO.org.
Personally, I am glad that the two groups worked things out. However, if they hadn't worked things out I would probably have used the FSF branch of OO.org simply because that's what Debian would be able to put into main. Debian's packaging system has spoiled me so badly that I now hate having to manage software myself.
Parent
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect you don't understand what exactly is "free" in this situation.
The GPL makes sure the code stays free. Remember "information wants to be free"? The FSF doesn't care about the programmers, as long as the code remains free.
If you don't like it, don't use the GPL, don't contribute code to a GPL project, and for heaven's sake don't use the Linux kernel because you're too cheap to come up with an OS of your own o
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:3, Insightful)
This "I have a right to YOUR source code" nonsense goes past what "free" really means.
I'm sorry, but I have a big problem with this attitude. Someone writes something and shares it with anyone who cares to use it. All they ask is that if you modify the software and distribute your new version that you share your source code changes. If you don't like it, don't take the deal. But complaining that a GPLed software author didn't give you everything you want is going a bit far.
Arguing which license is "
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is "more free for whom".
The BSD licences allow anyone to use the code for any purpose, but that can include taking a free software project proprietary. The GPL guarantees that a project cannot be taken and turned into something proprietary.
RMS and the people who agree with him want to maximize the freedom of the end-user, even at the expense of the developer. The most extreme case of this is that RMS would like to require that all new software be released under GPL.[1] Very, v
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD is great (IMHO) for things like reference implementations (e.g. for TCP/IP). For things that you want implemented everywhere. But if you don't want your code ending up proprietary then it's not as good. GPL is better at keeping your code open.
Which is to say that there are advantages to each license, and it's not obvious to me that either is inherantly better than the other.
$.02
Parent
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is, FSF lists the BSD licence as a free software license. Tho the original version has certain "flaws" that renders it incompatible with the GNU GPL.
"What has Stallman done that's original thought"
He like STARTED the whole free software movement, enough said imo.
And of course he's a saint
http://www.gnu.org/people/saintignucius.jpg [gnu.org]
Parent
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Informative)
That's just slander. Do you have any comment implying something like this from RMS? I've never seen one.
Bullshit. Try reading a bit on the FSF website. BSD is specifically identified as a free software license as are lots of others and they have a very clear definition of free software you can use to judge licenses for yourself.
He may prefer the GPL because of copyleft but the GNU project itself chose X (which is MIT licensed) as their windowing system because it was free and ready.
This article isn't about recreating something that isn't GPL either. It's about what happened with Motif and Qt all over again. And he wasn't even talking about a rewrite. KDE used Qt back when it was still non-free and that prompted the creation of GNOME.
Using something like Java has real consequences. For *users*. People on *BSD, BeOS will have a hard time porting/running your software when there is no official JRE offered. Or you could happen to be running Linux on a somewhat less usual processor architechture.
*Sigh* Trolling real hard, aren't you?First of all, why would the GPL not count when it could be argued that it's one of the main reasons for free software's success and is used by something like 70% of free software?
Second, EMACS is very well known to be the original work of RMS and he also wrote the original GNU C compiler. Many of the essential system utilities you use if you're using a GNU/Linux system are a result of the work of the GNU project. I won't even bother commenting on your idiotic remarks on GCJ.
Your beloved BSD still uses some GNU components though. Such as the GNU Compiler Collection which includes "Stallman's Java-clone" and is used to compile each and every application you're using. And don't even get me started on the various GPLed parts. If you're using FreeBSD it also is pretty frustrating to install OpenOffice.org from ports because of the Java dependency. Fortunately Java compiles out of the box so you can still use it. On some other BSD that may not be the case and there are no guarantees that a newer version will still work. Time to go using Windows exclusively, maybe? After all, it has such a nice and free license and everything they do is completely original instead of cloning stuff and then releasing it under the restrictive GPL license.
Parent
The concessions (Score:4, Insightful)
This was already being done. There was a plugin interface that hooked into the AWT layer of the JVM, but that was something that was easily replacable by other VMs. Previous versions of OOo (probably from back when it was StarDivision property) used hidden APIs, but this was cleaned up in the 2.0 edition.
Java JRE interested parties provide the support code and take care
of QA, bugs etc.
This sounds like they're moving the plugin code out of OpenOffice and into the JVM. Technically, this is where it belongs, but it's always nice to be able to support the largest number of VMs possible.
OOo Java implementations must be encapsulated with well specified APIs
This is just good engineering design. If you can't produce readable JavaDocs from it, it isn't a good API.
OOo Java implementations must not check against Java versions or
vendors, with the only exception of workarounding bugs
Again, this is just common sense. Checking version numbers is a good way to nail yourself in the foot on future releases.
OOo Java implementations must not use swing, either because no free
swing implemetation is available or because it makes the user interface
inconsistent, this rule might be relativated in respect to 4
This is just common sense anyway. Using Swing would be detrimental to the GUI unless it was decided that the entire GUI framework would move at once. Such a decision would involve the entire OOo community.
the Java baseline is 1.3.1
This is the only concession I see being made. (1.4 & 1.5 have some *really* nice features.)
The amusing part about this is that the whole tirade against Java in OOo is nothing but a farce. A quick check of the 2.0 code finds almost nothing that violates these "concessions", and they amount to nothing more than diplomacy anyway. (i.e. The art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a big stick.)
The truth is that Sun has bent over backwards for the OSS community, and all they get for their troubles are painful stabs in the back. Yeah, Sun's got some loud mouths working for them. But their actions have ALWAYS been honorable. Despite all the nonsense about "contamination", has anyone EVER had Sun sue them? I've certainly never heard of a case! And when Sun realized that the language was confusing, they updated future source releases [java.net] with new language [java.net] that EXPLICITY gives developers rights to whatever they remember. So no more excuses! If you want an OS Java platform, code it. Sun sure as hell isn't standing in your way.
BTW, Mr. Stallman. How's Hurd coming along?
Re:The concessions (Score:5, Insightful)
They actually sued Microsoft over it. I don't know if you remember.
You may feel that the good-practice inspired guidelines are stuff the OOo team would have done anyway, and that's well and good, but as nobody was sure that was actually what would have happened, it was worth the FSF talking to the OOo people to make sure.
I await the news about Linus rewriting Linux in Sun's Java. Now, that'll be some flamewar, as you'll get all the "If an obscure proprietary method happens to be best for the job, Linus is absolutely right to use it and make the entire Linux kernel dependent on it!" apologists flaming those who do not consider wearing someone else's handcuffs "practical".
Parent
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Informative)
Go program Java for a little while. The "hidden" APIs are not a necessary evil, or in any way desirable to use. The very design of the Java platform is so open that those APIs are almost impossible and completely unncessary to use. Pretty much all examples of this usage comes from the 1.1 days when a f
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Insightful)
*shrug* The concern Stallman had was that OOo wouldn't be compatable with (real and hypothetical) Free Java implementations, a legitimate concern given the difficulty of restricting one's self to an "official" API.
I find it amusing that RMS is looking to ensure that a project will be compatable with 'Free' version of a language that was created, developed, fostered and made acceptable by a closed source company. Why isnt he promoting the use of a fully 'Free' language, like Python or similiar (no, Im
Re:The concessions (Score:5, Insightful)
*Sigh*
This is not about whether Sun is a benevolent company or not, or if Java is a good solution or not.
Is Java nice? Yup. Is it the right tool for the job? Obviously.
Are most of the people at Sun trying to be a good OSS citizens? You betcha.
Is Java Free Software? Nope. Not yet, it isn't.
That's where all of the problems stem from.
What if Sun suddenly did turn malevolent (Schwartz - one of the loud mouths - is no fan of the GPL, after all) could they do real damage? Yup.
If a malevolent entity bought Sun - with a depressed Sun stock, it's a real possibility - could that entity do damage? Oh boy, you bet.
It's not stabbing Sun in the back - it's protecting the backs of OSS developers and users now and in the future.
Soko
Parent
Re:The concessions (Score:4, Informative)
You keep turning this into an attack on Sun, and it's not. It's an attack on OOo's reliance on Java, which introduces compatibility problems with Free Software.
In other words, you keep *completely* missing the point.
Sun doesn't have to make Java Open Source, but that's not the issue at hand, is it? Relying on Java is not FSF-friendly, so the FSF will try to convince that project to "stay the course", as it were. There's nothing wrong or "nonsensical" about this at all.
Parent
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Insightful)
No reason to shout. The GNU Foundation not having a JVM isn't Suns problem at all. It is still a problem, however, and one that needed to be dealt with.
If a malevolent entity hit Linus with a bus and acquired his Linux trademarks, and with the numbe
Re:The concessions (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior to this "agreement", all the rest of the terms you dismiss were not certain, the OOo team could have violated them for practical reasons at any time. Now that'll be much more unlikely. The FSF is being quite rational in criticizing the inclusion of Java code into the OOo project. The OOo team has agreed to not fall into the potential traps that the FSF fears. This is, on the whole, a very good thing.
The amusing part about this is that the whole tirade against Java in OOo is nothing but a farce.
In your clearly anti-FSF biased opinion, perhaps. You're not an idealist, but a pragmatist, OK, no big deal. But you'd have to be one hell of a cynic as well, to call it a "farce".
The truth is that Sun has bent over backwards for the OSS community
Prefacing the statement with "the truth is" doesn't make it true. What has Sun done that constitutes "bending over backwards"? In the OSS community, "bending over backwards" tends to mean making your code open source.
Despite all the nonsense about "contamination", has anyone EVER had Sun sue them?
Does the name "Microsoft" ring a bell?
BTW, Mr. Stallman. How's Hurd coming along?
What's that got to do with Java and OOo? Or is it just an ad hominem? I don't know who you are, but it's a good bet that Stallman has done more to make my life better than you ever will. A cheap shot won't change that, either.
Parent
The copyleft JVM should have fixed its issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The glass is indeed half full. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, your post I thought was pretty good, but this last bit doesn't do the rest justice. Hurd doesn't have the mindshare to make the kind of rapid progress Linux does. What's that to you?
The bottom line here is that Stallman has an agenda. A political agenda. A political agenda based on his philosophical principles. What's wrong with that? And, in this case, he was able to draw some attention to, and to advance the aims of his political agenda. Which is what people with political agendas do.
Since, in the end, he didn't really do any harm to OO, and may even bring it some resources it needs (developers and testers), the final results are win-win, which is an uncommonly good outcome for a political dispute. Granted, a person with a more personable character might have got to the win-win scenario with considerably less heat and fuss, but unfortunately, my experience is that by in large the world effectively ignores those kinds of people unless they have the kind of credibility that only comes with having piles of money at their command. If things were different, then the world would probably be a better place.
Even good people rarely place principle as high as convenience. Incidents like the recent Linuxworld editor ultimatum over Ms. O'Gara's nastiness are, unfortunately, a rarity. For most of the rest of us, principles are really just a vague, far away abstraction, whereas convenience and profit are very clear and immediate. Right and wrong would never play a role in any decision we make, if it weren't for the fear of exposure.
So, we are stuck with gadflies, who vary widely in their admirability, but are universally unlikeable. Nobody enjoys being on the receiving end of a sting, which in every case is bound to seem overly harsh and unjustified. As unpleasant as they are to have around, gadflies play an important function. And if you don't like having them around, consider how fortunate you are not to be one. While I'm sure it has it's rewards, being driven against the current of the world must be a frustrating existence.
Parent
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Insightful)
Such as? No one has come forward with any solid complaints against the 2.0 release. Almost all complaints (e.g. hidden APIs) are against the OLD version of OOo. If you have a solid argument then by all means, make it.
however that really doesn't mean that one shouldn't be able to critizise SUN when they do something bad and stupid
Except that they haven't managed to do anything stupid. They
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Interesting)
The FSF's failure to produce a JVM based on open specs is NOT everyone else's problem. If Mr. Stallman wants to fix the situation, he should be inciting his troops to fix their Open JVMs. Otherwise he can keep his trap shut, because he has no right to complain.
emacs, gcc, gnu...
Funny, it seems that EMacs and GCC have a lot of help from corporate entities. And what is "gnu"? I'm not familiar with that pr
Re:Get off your horse (Score:3, Insightful)
You *can't* be serious! Stallman has been one of the most reliable people in the computer industry. You can *always* be sure which side of the argument he'll be on--even if it's not always your side.
Personally, while I hold software freedom (in the FSF sense) as a value, I don't hold it as the ultimate value. In that sen
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Unbiased (Score:5, Informative)
This was also posted on the NF page.
A surprisingly conciliatory attitude on both sides (Score:3, Insightful)
Zealotry as a force for good (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to the type of zealotry which some people say is killing Debian.
Exactly, this improves things for all (Score:3, Insightful)
That really was the most efficient solution, and Stallman being the eminent software developer realized this when he had all the facts.
Really I feel it unfair to label Stallman a "zealot" when really it should be more like "informed and stubborn for the good of all".
Conflict? Only one side was whining (Score:5, Insightful)
What concessions did the "other side" make?
Re:Conflict? Only one side was whining (Score:3, Informative)
Not forking. Being willing to accept an OpenOffice version that had Java in it at all.
Re:Conflict? Only one side was whining (Score:4, Funny)
To stop bitching quite as loudly for a little while
Parent
double standards (Score:3, Funny)
Re:double standards (Score:3, Interesting)
The issues are good to air (Score:3, Insightful)
The proposal to use GCJ was a good one, and I think raising these issues benefits open source even though it exposes the frictions between the players in the movement.
It's not over until there's an open distro (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason this is so important is that if all the source is openly available, nobody can make it go away. It's essential to avoid "drug dealer marketing" - the first one is free, but then it's going to cost you. There have been too many products that started out "open", and then started to cost money once they had users locked in.
The typical progression for psuedo-free software is
Examples are Intellicad [intellicad.com], Sendmail [sendmail.com], and QNX [qnx.com]
Nice that they decided to listen to their customer (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice article, until he makes it sound like having priciples is a bad thing. The issue with FSF is not one of "conscience" but of licenses that can/will be an impedient of free use of the software. This goes beyond conscience and ventures into the realm of property rights that typically can deny others of free use. That is why Stallman in the past warned of the issue of using Sun Java.
I think OOo need to look at FSF as representing customers that have a particular demand and accomodate that demand. All too often critics misuse the word "conscience" to disparage FSF community (customers) demands.
This is simple "marketing 101" -- listen to the demands of your customers
Portable OpenOffice and Java (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't the FSF seem a bit demanding? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF and Stallman is correct (Score:5, Interesting)
If you cannot package and distribute the application
"with the JVM" it is not and never will be free.
I happen to like java, but I sure would never use it in something I was gonna distribute.
Hmm... still don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have java installed.
All of the functionality that worked in 1.0+ works better in 2.0, and I don't use any of the additional features. Obviously, some people will want to use those features, but wow, aren't we always the ones yelling at MS for their stupid "wizards" and now we're mad cause we can't use the OOo ones? And isn't MS Access the bane of all db developers everywhere? And now we're upset cause we can't use our own half assed, not nearly as nice version of Access?
Seriously people I don't understand. OOo 2.0 is not "crippled" without java, it works just fine for 100% of the existing (ie 1.0) functionality, and all you're missing is some gay wizards, and a half baked db frontend that crashes all the time. I installed java for about 10 minutes to check out the java features, and then uninstalled it, cause well they sucked. I know this is only a beta release and I'm sure 2.0 will be better.. but it won't be anywhere close to usable, not for anything remotely real.
Java Trap Illusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Also The Harmony project [slashdot.org] (if it is successful) would seem to lay to rest any FOSS advocate's qualms about Java.
Re:JavaTrap? (Score:5, Informative)
There's a hell of a lot more for Java. For example, there's no other platform that has as many high quality, cross platform database drivers. And for that matter, Java has quite a few free database engines (HSQL, McKoi, Derby (Cloudscape, etc.) At the end of the day, there simply isn't any other solution that's as well supported and ubiquitous as Java.
At the risk of starting a flamewar, I have to say that I'm proud to have been a vocal early adopter that helped Java reach the status it has today. It's a good language, a good platform, hosted by a good company, and supported by many. Only the original Unix platform had such a profound effect on the industry.
Parent
Re:What about StarBasic? (Score:4, Informative)
StarBasic is powerful enough for wizards and dialogs. Many of OOo's AutoPilots are written in Basic.
Is there more heavy lifting that really needs Java?
Yes.
Or Python, but...
Or is this a matter of more people know how to code in Java vs. StarBasic?
Using OOo's API with Java is much more difficult than using the same API from OOoBasic. It is the case that there simply are things that cannot be done in Basic...
Parent