Open source Java? 341
Bruce writes "Newsforge is reporting that Java 2 Standard Edition, may soon be set free of Sun Microsystems' notoriously complicated licensing. A group of 12 Apache developers have put together a proposal called Harmony. The proposal appeared as a simple project call last Friday on an Apache incubator mailing list. It would make this new, built-from-the-ground-up version of Java available under the Apache 2.0 free software license. And it's causing quite a stir in the Java community, especially since respected Sun frontmen Tim Bray, Simon Phipps, and Graham Hamilton have given the project their blessing. As yet there has been no reaction from Dr. Java, James Gosling himself, who is in Brazil talking to developers. In a FAQ on the Apache site, Harmony project leader Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: 'We believe that there is broad community interest in coming together to create and use an open source, compatible implementation of J2SE 5, the latest version of the Java 2 Standard Edition specification. While the Java Community Process has allowed open source implementations of JSRs for a few years now, Java 5 is the first of the J2SE specs that we are able to do due to licensing reasons.'"
Ugh. Dupe. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ugh. Dupe. (Score:2)
Re:Miguel's take on Harmony (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I don't see how anyone can care about
I was under the impression... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I was under the impression... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I was under the impression... (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, first Blackdown is 100%. It's not an open source VM. It's a port of Sun's.
Kaffe and GCJ haven't stopped anywhere. Both are using the same class library (GNU Classpath).
Does this [wildebeest.org] look like 'stopping'?
Re:I was under the impression... (Score:2)
Even though "anyone can write a Java VM", so far there isn't a complete open source Java VM. If Apache wants to build one I'm not going to complain.
Re:I was under the impression... (Score:5, Informative)
Dupes Ahoy! (Score:5, Informative)
I liked this story better when it was posted a week ago [slashdot.org].
C'mon, "editors". This has to be getting embarrassing. Right?
Not Embarassing (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't wait for Java to be fully open source so I can gut it and re-release it how I would like to see it written. Can't wait.
Re:Dupes Ahoy! (Score:4, Interesting)
gcj and the new license wars (Score:5, Interesting)
Why start from scratch? It this simply because the Apache folks don't like the GPL?
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it hasn't been decided if they will start from scratch yet. They might adopt an existing VM. They might adopt the GNU Classpath class library.
The discussions on checking up the inevitable licensing issues are already underway.
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL and Apache licenses aren't quite compatible.
Since the GPL doesnt allow for distribution of code under any other license, then its not compatable with any other license. Other licenses are compatable with it, but its most certainly not a two way thing.Sometimes different ideologies foster competition, just as Firefox has forced MS to reopen development on IE 7, the GPL license forces people with more broader ideologies to create competitors to GPLed projects.
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:2)
I'm not holding my breath...
Actually, code can be double-licensed under GPL and another license, but you need some conditions for that (i.e. you can't integrate any GPL code into your main tree, you must be the original author of the code (not basing it on any prior GPL code), or backport modifications to your GNU code by others back into the non-GNU version.)
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:2)
So you believe this project will make Sun finally to set THE Java Free? I'm not holding my breath...
I dont believe anything, Im not even a Java developer :) Im reading and commenting on this story because Im waiting for some ObjC code to compile atm, no other reason!
Actually, code can be double-licensed under GPL and another license, but you need some conditions for that (i.e. you can't integrate any GPL code into your main tree, you must be the original author of the code (not basing it on any pri
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:2)
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:2)
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:2)
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:3, Interesting)
That may not always be true... (Score:2)
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:2)
The people who write this code under the Apache license are in fact inviting all software companies to take their code and do whatever they want with it. If some code based on the GPL also adopts the code at least they will be able to se
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you mean re-distribution?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the GPL only covered re-distribution, and also could not prohibit authors from distributing under multiple licenses. Put simply, as the author of software, I choose the number and type of each license for every release of code.
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:2)
Re:gcj and the new license wars (Score:2)
Don't you mean re-distribution?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the GPL only covered re-distribution, and also could not prohibit authors from distributing under multiple licenses. Put simply, as the author of software, I choose the number and type of each license for every release of code.
You're right in a sense, but the OP is technically more accurate... If you acquire code under the GPL, you can only r
Quite a stir? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a home-made a storm in a teacup. There is already an initiative to create a free Java: GNU GJC. And no one cares about it. The Apache people are just running some propaganda now, but it will be forgotten in a few weeks.
Re:Quite a stir? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quite a stir? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quite a stir? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quite a stir? (Score:2)
I don't care that much if it's oss, but it would be nice to at least have a jdk/jre that is freely redistributable, so that i could install it on freebsd without having to jump through so many hoops. while i prefer open source to proprietary software when possible, i don't have an issue with using proprietary software when it gets the job done better. java in it's current state is a pain to use on most non-li
Java's biggest hole is in the embedded market. (Score:5, Interesting)
What typically happens is that some company has a neat idea for an embedded device. But they quickly find that the Java applications they want there won't fly because Java isn't supported on the hardware they were planning to use. They either have to fall back to a different CPU (which is usually more expensive), or pay a lot just to put Java on the CPU. Or go with C/C++ for their applications.
x86 and PPC are simply not the entire embedded world. There are many other superb (and cheaper) solutions out there, in this space. And no, Java support is far from prevalent on MIPS processors, despite what MIPS might try to claim. I know, as I've been there.
Please keep in mind that there are far more embedded CPUs around than there are PCs or Servers. So there is a clear need for Java, if it were available in this space. But it's not. gcc however, usually is, fortunately.
If Java were indeed Open Sourced, it just might be as popular as gcc is in the embedded space. Until then, people in the embedded space have far more flexibility by going with C/C++ than with Java.
Re:Java's biggest hole is in the embedded market. (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose that does give a competitor who knows what it is doing a leg up. But still, the point remains that the lack of Openess with Java is hindering its adoption on a good many CPUs.
As far as the
Re:Quite a stir? (Score:2)
The vast majority of users of any zero cost technology don't care if it's open source.
While you may be correct about the Java community at large, I think you may be off the mark with respect to senior Java developers. I think a fair number of senior Java developers have, at least once or twice, had language recommendations coldly rebuffed by Sun (and, to Sun's credit, probably have had a few accepted through the JCP). Sun is renowned
Re:Quite a stir? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no desire or need to change or add features, I have no desire or need to run it on unsupported OSes, and I have no desire or need to distribute it to third parties. I have no desire or, as far as I can see, need for Java to be open sourced.
Your mileage my vary, of course, but for myself, I see no value in it.
Anyone sum up... (Score:2)
Re:Anyone sum up... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anyone sum up... (Score:2)
Dupe, and why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dupe, and why? (Score:5, Insightful)
To produce such a thing, we need a community of competent people committed to that goal. This is what other Open Source Java projects lack.
To get such community going, one needs to communicate in a certain manner. This is what the Harmony people are now doing. The strenght of this project is, to me, that it has both excellent technical competence and competence in community management and in setting and achieving goals in a reliable manner.
This attempt is getting so much attention because senior people who understand that there is more to life than mere technical details pay attention when people who have a track record in producing results, speak.
Re:Dupe, and why? (Score:3, Insightful)
What an insulting thing to say.
Re:Dupe, and why? (Score:2)
still doesn't warrant posting it twice, zonk is obviously having a bad day.
Helping out current Java Open Source projects? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bringing open source Java runtimes to fruition should be an important step for open source java projects that are currently held back from entering distributions and packages because of this requirement. Also the requirement of Sun Java to use Java 5 on Linux (this situation may have changed..) would be a good thing to challenge.
Having such a fundamental and established organization like the Apache project behind the effort should really aid & help to posture this effort within the wider open-source community.
Interesting name "Harmony" (Score:4, Insightful)
Odd how history DOES repeat itself
Re:Interesting name "Harmony" (Score:4, Insightful)
Da Name (Score:2, Insightful)
Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would someone encourage fragmentation and resource wasting ala KDE, Gnome and the gazzillions of Linux flavors is beyond me.
Sun, keep up the great stwerdess of the Java platform.
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem is that only platforms that are directly important to Sun or IBM get full featured Java environments. Java on PowerPC Linux is still substandard. IBM makes a JVM availiable but you have to jump through hoops even as an end user to get it and you still don't have a browser plugin. An Open Source Java would be available on just about all platforms with equal functionality.
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:2)
But aside from licensing holy wars, if the problem is that Java is hard to distribute w/ OSS, shouldn't the solution figure out how to pressure Sun or IBM int
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:3, Insightful)
People have been working on that problem for almost ten years, and no progress has been made. It's time for a different approach.
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever tried running Java on *BSD? It works to some extent, but it isn't pretty. Having an open implementation could mean that Java and Java Server Pages would become more widely accepted in servers running open systems.
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:2, Interesting)
Fending off the fundamentalists... (Score:2, Insightful)
By not giving excuses to rabid, open-source fundamentalist freaks to attack every worthwhile project that uses Java?
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:2)
It's not whether it's open source or not, it's whether it can be shipped with an open source OS or not. Right now the biggest problem Java has is that when you get your BSD or Linux system set up, you can just click buttons in the installer and you're good to go.
Unless the packages depend on Java, then you have to download Java from Sun's website (which can be really annoying when you're beh
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:2, Insightful)
See The Java Trap [gnu.org].
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:2, Interesting)
Number one in the low number of exploits. How many J2ME worms are out there? How many Java applet hijacks are reported each year? Close to zero, if not zero.
Also, there are plenty of benchmarks showing Java is as fast or faster than C and C++ on large datasets and long-running applications, when the environment initialization isn't a hit on performance.
Java isn't perfect, but it is so complete that it would be easier to use than most alternatives. While Python is certainly gaining traction, Lisp quick
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up (Score:3, Informative)
I love people who don't know what on earth they're talking about. Lisp has little to do with AI except as an accident of history. Today people use Lisp to write 3D games for the Playstation, complex business applcations, robot controllers for NASA and just about anything in betwe
Is something going on behind the scenes ? (Score:2)
Has Sun donated to the Apache foundation before (XML parsers ??)
If they were trying to release source code as a seperate effort wouldn't the Apache group be a likely outlet ?
Re:Is something going on behind the scenes ? (Score:2)
Pay no attention to that monkey... er, man... er, monkey-boy behind the curtain.
OpenOffice.org (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OpenOffice.org (Score:2)
What about patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about patents? (Score:3, Informative)
The Kodak patent is so broad that it could be used to sue anyone using an object oriented programming language. It is not Java specific. Sun settled with a $92 million payment, Microsoft has taken a license.
Unfortunately it seems to have survived a court test, so it will take a lot to get it declared ivalid. However most people believe that it should be because of prior art going back to the days of Simula.
Getting ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
You've been around long enough now. Time to start quickly checking
I hope you're really, really ashamed of the multiple editorial failures you're responsible for. Time to step up and do something about it, man ! No need to follow bad examples !
And I choose not to go AC to say that.
I see a case of "redundancy" (Score:2)
Re:I see a case of "redundancy" (Score:2)
However, if you're using Linux (most distros don't accept Sun's licensing) you won't have to do that, since a FOSS distro wouldn't have the same terms.
If you're using an operating system which Sun's java doesn't support, you're plain out of luck. A FOSS JVM is more likely to be ported. And you can do it yourself if bad comes to worse.
Lastly, having a second implementation avoids vendor loc
Re:I see a case of "redundancy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Scenario 1: You as an end user wouldn't have to. It would be included with your operating system, which is not currently the case. If you have to seek one out you would probably seek out Sun's, but if your Linux distro came with Apache's you would just use it unless it was unsuitable in some way.
Scenario 2: You develop Java apps. Right now you have to direct end users to another website (Sun's) and follow instructions found there to download and install Java. You could instead offer an install package that already includes Harmony.
Scenario 3: You want to use Java on an unsupported machine. Right now you don't really have many options for running Java apps on PocketPCs, for example (Like my Jornada 568). An Open Source JVM would almost certainly be ported a wide variety of platforms (considering how many platforms have reimplementations like Waba attempted for them the demand is obviously there).
Re:I see a case of "redundancy" (Score:2)
This would make sense except that Dell and HP already sell Windows machines with Sun's latest JVM installed by default. So more than likely an "end user" already has Java installed. If its linux well, the same
Re:I see a case of "redundancy" (Score:2)
Currently, the download is:
"[download NOW] --- This program requires a Java Virtual Machine. You can obtain one from [SUN website]" and then several steps of separate install to get Sun J2SE working.
This would look now like this:
"This program requires a Java Virtual Machine. If you already have one, download [standalone version]. If you don't, or aren't sure, downloa
Re:I see a case of "redundancy" (Score:2)
As an end user... you won't have to go to anyone's website and accept a clickthrough license to download Harmony. It'll be there on your system, like Perl and bash are.
IBM connection (Score:4, Informative)
What makes this slightly interesting is the IBM connection:
Geir Magnusson Jr. is a lead in the proposed Har mony Project
Geir Magnusson Jr. is from Gluecode [codehaus.org], which IBM has acquired.
If it weren't for that, I'd just say "yeah, whatever - it's just another JVM implementation."
Gluecode not connected (Score:3, Informative)
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
And when they finally look at doing so, all I see people saying are things like "We already have GJC, you fuckers... we don't need you anymore".
I just don't get it.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
That's what's more or less burned out whatever interest I ever had in Java. It's just another checkbox to slow down setting up a production system.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Informative)
Those people are whiners anyway; they have no credibility.
And when they finally look at doing so...
You didn't understand the article correctly. Sun is still not planning to open source their VM.
all I see people saying are things like "We already have GJC, you fuckers... we don't need you anymore".
One benefit of open source is that it makes users independent from vendors. Not needing Sun is very important for some people.
Apache made the p
Why ask why? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a power user that doesn't need support for my operating system, so there's no reason to buy the boxed versions other than to provide financial support to the vendor or to acquire software the distribution is prohibited from providing for free download due to licensing restrictions -- like Java. It doesn't make sense to pay to get something free.
Kaffe and GCJ don't cut it because they are not completely compatible to the spec and their performance is woeful compared to Sun's JVM, let alone JRockit or J9. This will provide a version of Java that distro vendors and others can bundle with their products on terms compatible with their licenses, business models, or other philosophical beliefs.
So what changed in the license for Java 5? (Score:2)
Thanks, Bill (Score:2, Offtopic)
Is anyone else reading a fork implication here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Something about the overall tone seemed to imply that they weren't just writing an implementation, but intended it to supercede Sun's closed implementation.
Sounds good really.
Critical thinking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's get real, folks. Critical thinking isn't that difficult.
Re:Critical thinking... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:GPL-Compatible? (Score:2)
Re:GPL-Compatible? (Score:2)
Re:GPL-Compatible? (Score:2)
Re:GPL-Compatible? (Score:2)
Re:GPL-Compatible? (Score:2)
A. No, neither license places any requirement on the usage of the software.
- Brian.
Re:Ummm... (Score:2)
But why won't they pick one of existing platforms and change it to their needs, instead of starting from scratch, is beyond me.
Re:Ummm... (Score:2)
It's disappointing to see the Apache guys start from 0% when we're already at 60%. It's going to take them years to catch up.
Re:standard java? (Score:2)
Re:standard java? (Score:2)
There's really little value in opening Java unless you need to change it in some significant way that the current process doesn't allow.
To the extent that an open Java is useful to others, it hurts Sun's power over it. To the extent it doesn't hurt Sun's power over it, it is not useful to others.
Re:standard java? (Score:2)
Re:Death to Apache (Score:2)
The link would have been sufficient (oh wait, the link was given -- in the first post!)
Re:Possibly poor foresight. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Possibly poor foresight. (Score:2)
The GPL is the license the market has picked. If Apache willfully chooses to spurn that, that's their problem. And we, the consumers, are the ones who have to deal with the side effects of the problem Apache has created.
Re:Possibly poor foresight. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Apache is. Many many more companies run Linux as a free way to run Apache than use Apache only because the chose Linux.
Re:Possibly poor foresight. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Possibly poor foresight. (Score:2)
Okay.
How actively do they participate in it, at current? What degree of influence or voice do they have? Is the creation of the Harmony project likely to change either of these things?
Re:"blessing" doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to tender a vote for "It's sheer Brobdingnagian size". Individually, each individual function of an API is something you could probably assign a college student to do, but taken together, to re-implement something like Java (which, like "Perl" or "Python" and unlike old-style "C" or ECMAScript, also implies a fairly sizable standard library) is just damned hard.
And as one lil' open source developer, I can't work up much excitement about re-implementing a language spec. (Full disclosure, I hate Java, but that statement is generally true; I can't think of any language I'd care to donate my time towards re-implementing.) I can't imagine this helps the developer pool. (Obviously this is not true of everyone, if you think I just claimed otherwise please learn to read what people say, not what you think they said. I'm just saying that I doubt this gets many people's blood pumping in a way that Yet Another Web Framework or YA MP3 Player seems to.)
Re:"blessing" doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Utter nonsense. Let's count the number of distinct implementations of Perl, Tcl, Ruby, Visual Basic...
Languages that are reimplemented frequently tend to be small, simple and appeal to language weenies (scheme, *ML) and/or there's money to be made.
The specs for Java have always been completely open. Anyone can reimplement it. The only restriction is that you can't call it Java unless it meets the spec (and proving that it meets the spec is, quite understandably, nontrivial because Java is a large, complex language).
If you like Java but want to change a few things, you're even free to do that, as long as you call it something else, like C#.
Haha, nice work mods. (Score:2, Informative)