Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Java Software Programming Upgrades Technology

J2SE 5.0 Source Code Bundles Now Available 150

Posted by CowboyNeal from the compile-again-run-anywhere dept.
madcowbrit writes "J2SE 5.0 Source code bundles are now available with SCSL and the new and exciting Java Research license! Coders have been asking for Java J2SE source code access under new terms. The new Java Research license gives people more access and options to work with the Java J2SE source code."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

J2SE 5.0 Source Code Bundles Now Available More

J2SE 5.0 Source Code Bundles Now Available

Comments Filter:

  • This is the best thing ever (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @11:43AM (#10741921)
    Now I can optimize it like I do Gentoo.

  • The big question is ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by molarmass192 ( 608071 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @11:45AM (#10741927) Homepage Journal
    Can you compile a FULLY functional JRE (not just rt.jar) and javac? If not, then this is no better than the MS source code access program. Look, but don't touch or try to do anything with it. Judging by the "SCSL Binaries - needed to complete source build", I'm guessing no.

    • If for Research... (Score:3, Informative)

      by idonotexist ( 450877 )
      If you use the code for "Research Use" means research, evaluation, or development for the purpose of advancing knowledge, teaching, learning, or customizing the Technology or Modifications for personal use. Research Use expressly excludes use or distribution for direct or indirect commercial (including strategic) gain or advantage then you have the right to [r]eproduce, create Modifications of, and use the Technology alone, or with Modifications. That's according to the license. If they required certain c
      • Yeah, I was just reading the license ... it's a pretty long and tedious read. Unfortunately, this doesn't really help me out at work. I'd like to customize the JRE for a production system. It would be nice if they allowed modifications for private commercial use. I do have to say, not to look a gift horse in the mouth, this is a certainly a step in the right direction for Sun. Kudos to them for doing this.
        • Out of Idle curiosity what would you like to customize?
          • The awt library, in particular the x clipboard.

      • Re:If for Research... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by miguel ( 7116 )
        And that is why that license stinks.

        It is "viral" in that if you get that code and
        learn from it, you can not use it to improve
        any open source software.

        I would very much like to see how Sun has
        implemented certain optimizations for Java and
        bring those over to Mono (or to other open source
        Java VMs, VMs in general, JIT engines, compilers
        or scripting languages).

        The problem is that the license explicitly
        forbids the use of it for this purpose `direct
        or indirect commecial (including strategic) gain
        or advantage'        .

        • Re:If for Research... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by UpLateDrinkingCoffee ( 605179 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:28PM (#10742391)
          I was at a conference recently with some high level Sun employees, and this subject came up.

          Sun isn't ashamed to admit that Java is not open source, and likely won't be for the foreseeable future. In fact, they seem to get a little angry at the question pointing out that Sun has spent millions developing Java and now the community expects them to make it GPL or something. I'm not sure how keeping the development burden of Java internal to Sun really makes them money, though. Open sourcing would be the ultimate outsoursing... hundreds (or thousands) of developers all contributing to Java for free.

          The biggest argument against this I heard is that Sun would have to halt new features of Java for 9-12mos and concentrate on getting the source ready to be released. I don't get this at all... just throw it in CVS and do it with the help of the open source community.

          P.S. The Colorado Software Sumit is awesome!

          • Re:If for Research... (Score:5, Informative)

            by YetAnotherAnonymousC ( 594097 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:50PM (#10742521)
            Another thing to remember is that IBM actually has written much of the j2se code. Who knows what the exact details of that license agreement are? I suspect that Sun (same goes for IBM) may not even have the full legal rights to unilaterally open source the j2se even if they decided they wanted to do it tomorrow.

            • Re:If for Research... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by geg81 ( 816215 )
              IBM has called on Sun to open source Java, so the obstacle is Sun, not IBM. The fact that IBM has contributed so much to J2SE is probably a thorn in IBM's side because they did a lot of work and Sun effectively gets to control what happens with it.

          • Re:If for Research... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:03PM (#10742584) Homepage
            Don't forget Java ME is a huge suscess on mobile phones etc.

            Why those guys will make it opensource so some guys at Redmond will copy/paste it to be .net for mobile?

            Yes, they actually do such crap. They did it before.

            • Sun could certainly release Java under a license that either explicitely forbids commercial use without a separate license negotiated with Sun, or under a license that MS would be very unlikely to want to use (eg. GPL might be a good example).

        • Re:If for Research... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:41PM (#10742747) Homepage
          Miguel, you are wrong. The license says "You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the Technology, except when such use violates Sun's copyrights or patent rights." In other words, you can read the code to learn how it works and use that knowledge. You just can't cut-and-paste Sun's code into another project.
          • well, you can do that with the GPL as well, but Microsoft tells their employees not to look at it, as it might be said that you're producing competing products and copying ideas.
            remember all the discussion on the leaked MS code, not to look at it at stuff? same thing.
            • Well what _might_ be said is irrellevant. It's perfectly alright to do that with GPL code, regardless of what Microsoft happens to think.

              The leaked MS code is different, however... that was released inappropriately and professionals that might come across the opportunity to obtain it are obligated to honor the copyright that was in place on it and not copy it at all.

            • There is a difference between what is allowed and what is company policy. Microsoft is attempting to avoid even the appearance of taking code improperly. I can understand why, and I think that its a good idea.
          • The license also defines "Modifications" as:

            "Modifications" means any (a) change or addition to the

            Technology or (b) new source or object code implementing any
            portion of the Technology.

            Therefore, yes, you may indeed use any information in intangible form that you remember, as long as you don't use it for implementing any portion of Java. That's because any portion of Java you implement after agreeing to the JRL is considered a "Modification" under the license agreement and would therefore fall under the

        • Miguel, So you mean if I once worked in Java group at Sun, when I left Sun I could never work on anything related to JVM implementation? Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Regards,

          • Re:If for Research... (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            It's not ridiculous. There's a legal concept of "inevitable disclosure" which means if you work on X at company A and then go work on X at company B, it's inevitable that you will end up using some of company A's trade secrets. However, it "decays" over time, so if you work on something else for a few years in between then you should be OK.

        • Relax.... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )
          It's unenforceable.

          They cannot stop you from learning from what you observe, nor can they stop you from exploiting that knowledge, even for commercial advantage.

          All they can ultimately do is come down against you if you actually _copied_their_code_ into a resulting work. If they try to stop you from producing something that may happen to have cosmetic similarity to their own code merely by virtue of it performing the same function, they would have to try to claim a patent over the portions of the code

        • I can hardly say I'm suprised that Sun don't want their code being used to improve Mono. Why on earth should they want that at all?

          Just because you're drinking the M$ koolaid doesn't mean that Sun has to.

    • Re:The big question is ... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yep you can, try it out yourself. You will still need the normal JDK for the source code for the J2SE API (the src.zip included) for it to be fully functional though.
    • This is just SUN throwing a bone to the free software community who has been asking for a free Java. What they want is the four software freedoms. SUN, by allowing this "shared source" access to take quick, careful peeks at the source code and hope SUN won't go SCO on your behind, want to be able to say "we're meeting you half-way, you stupid hippies!" This move is guaranteed to get them excellent scores in the press, which thinks they've listened and acted. At the same time, the free software community won
      • Sure, Sun may gain PR here. But, there may be other advantages. If a research group hacked and recompiled the JRE to run with impressive performance gains, wouldn't there be a likelihood Sun (and other corps running Java) would take notice? Overall, this move might improve Java, in some way. What way is that? A way discovered by groups who play with Java under the license (research/universities...).

      • Re:The big question is ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by carnivore302 ( 708545 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:14PM (#10742035) Journal
        At the same time, the free software community won't be able to complain any more, since they'll just look like arrogant whiners

        And rightfully so. Don't forget Sun has invested a lot of both time and money into java. Frankly, I am surprised they go as far as they do now. From the license faq [java.net]:

        12. Am I required to keep my research "java compatible?"

        No. The license encourages you to innovate and experiment using the java technology core. It is expected that research implementations will not be compatible with the Reference Implementation from Sun. This is ok.

        13. Can I publish my source code at a conference, and in white papers?

        Yes, you may publish your work in the usually accepted academic manner as long as you reference the Java Research License and include the correct copyright information.

        14. Can I share my modifications with other researchers?

        Yes, provided that the other researchers have accepted the JRL.

        I might not be your regular open source hippy, but I feel that anyone that has taken the time to create software or whatever has the right to define the terms upon how it is used. Sure, the community has given a lot back. Some (can't find the link, but it was mentioned on slashdot some time ago) even argue that if it weren't for this Sun would be out of business by now. So it's a bit of giving and a bit of taking. This seems like a great gesture from Sun.

        • They've got the right to. And I've got the right not to use it. If they want me to use it, they have to design the license so that I find it useful to use.

          You do? Fine. You use it. I don't feel like reading through another long and tedious contract, and I'm rather satisfied with the selection of tools I have available. (Well, not really...but I've seen no indication that Java improves over my other alternatives.)

          To me, their prior license was so bad that I just completely avoided Java (well, since b

        • I feel that anyone who has taken the time to create software [...] has the right to define the terms upon how it is used.

          I don't think anyone is trying to force Sun to open source the Java reference implementation. Rather, what are being highlighted are the practical deficiencies of its licence. There are undeniable business risks associated with using software whose future direction is so heavily under the control of a single company, whose priorities may conflict with the interests of your own busines

        • but I feel that anyone that has taken the time to create software or whatever has the right to define the terms upon how it is used.

          Yes, and users have a right to discuss and decide for themselves whether a particular piece of software comes with a license that is acceptable. That's not "whining", it's sensible if you don't want to get locked into something proprietary. And it's something that both FOSS users and commercial users have a responsibility to do.

          So it's a bit of giving and a bit of taking.
      • wasn't it ibm who asked sun to open source the java a bit? i don't get why ibm wouldn't release an open source jdk/jre if they think it's important. hell, they're accustom to giving sun the fingered salute (swt) from time to time.
        • There actually is an open source JVM from IBM, jikesrvm [ibm.com]..
          • that is an interesting project, but it seems similar to the gnu java stuff (actually it seems to perhaps use their stuff). it's not complete, and it's quite a few major version behind the current.

            kinda like the openejb container. the current version supports ejb 1.1. i know they're working with the geronimo folks to get 2.0 certified with the whole geronimo project, but even that will be dated when it happens. someday, it might turn into something like mozilla which is functional, usable and can keep ah
      • There is no real danger of "Sun going SCO" on us...

        Not saying that Sun might not try (although I doubt it), but it's simply unemforceable to prevent people from _learning_ from something they've been exposed to... and as this is a "Research" license, it should be expected that learning is going to be part of the process when one obtains JRL code.

        Also, under the law that we currently enjoy, it is impossible to prevent a person from exploiting knowledge that he or she has learned in any capacity as long a

    • I STAND CORRECTED!!! (Score:5, Informative)

      by molarmass192 ( 608071 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:05PM (#10742003) Homepage Journal
      The binaries are only fonts, sounds, and icons ... you DO get all the source code. I'm friggen impressed now!
    • Yes, you can. This is how we create native JVM's for FreeBSD (and have been doing it since the Java 1.3 days).
      • I haven't checked for this version yet, but with 1.4 and earlier, building from source required having a working jvm.. kindof a chicken egg problem :P
        • Same situation :) FreeBSD does it with Linux emulation.

          gcc has to do the same thing.
          • > Same situation :) FreeBSD does it with Linux emulation.

            I know... I have been building them from ports for years, just didn't look at 1.5/5 yet.

            > gcc has to do the same thing

            Well, only partially.

            What GCC needs is an ansi C compiler (and at least for 2.9x and earlier, a K&R compiler would do)

            Those are available from many sources.

            I have built gcc (2.95) on HPUX with help from the K&R C compiler that HPUX comes with by default.

            I still have to see jdk14 build with anything that is not a SU

  • how open ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anandpur ( 303114 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @11:52AM (#10741962)
    What is the status of SCSL and JRL with other open source licenses e.g. BSD, GPL or more restrictive. any martix?
    http://www.opensource.org/ [opensource.org]

    • not open at all (Score:5, Informative)

      by geg81 ( 816215 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:16PM (#10742038)
      You can find Sun's license here [sun.com]. Sun admits [sun.com] that it isn't an open source license, they are just trying to argue that it is somehow better than open source.

      Because Debian is forced to classify software into open source or not, Debian has had to look at this in some detail, and they concluded that it was not open source [debian.org].

      • Re:not open at all (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Be careful, the computer industry (Sun specifically) has used the word "open" for many years before someone invented "Open Source" as a bogo-trademark. Java is "open" (documented, can be reimplemented), and it does have viewable source code, which meets the generic defintion of "open source".

        The Debian jargon is actually "does not meet the DFSG".

        • Re:not open at all (Score:3, Insightful)

          by geg81 ( 816215 )
          Java is "open" (documented, can be reimplemented)

          The Java platform cannot be legally reimplemented without meeting Sun's compatibility requirements and without obtaining licenses for several of Sun's patents (Sun has refrained to enforce that against open source, but as Unisys and SCO show you, you can cause trouble many years after some infringement has taken place). As a result, the Java platform is not open (i.e., an "open standard") in the long-established meaning of the term.

          the computer industry

          • Re:not open at all (Score:4, Informative)

            by vegetasaiyajin ( 701824 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @04:28PM (#10743151)
            The Java platform cannot be legally reimplemented without meeting Sun's compatibility requirements and without obtaining licenses for several of Sun's patents

            Obtaining the license is no problem.
            From the Java language specification:

            Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants you a fully-paid, nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without the right to sublicense) under SUN's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this specification. This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification.

            Your implementation has to pass the compatibility tests, though.

            There are several clean room implementations of Java (GCJ, Kaffe, TowerJ, Jeode and others I forget). I don't know which ones paid Sun though.
            I think you have to pay if you want to use the trademark name Java.
            • Obtaining the license is no problem. [...] Your implementation has to pass the compatibility tests, though.

              So, you have to execute a license with Sun and then Sun gets to look at your implementation before you finish it and decide whether they like it. If they don't like it, you don't get to distribute it. Would you consider it "open" if Microsoft did that? Well, you shouldn't when Sun does it either.

              I think you have to pay if you want to use the trademark name Java.

              It's not about whether you have
              • GCJ and Kaffe are not implementations of Java since what they implement is only a subset and has not passed compatibility tests.
                OK, but nothing prevents them from distributing it, right? so what is the problem?. I understand the goal of these projects (at least, GCJ) is to provide a complete Java environment. GCJ, in fact, only misses certain parts of the standard library, but the support for all the language features is pretty complete (of course, 1.4 language features, I hope they never implement the

          • The Java platform cannot be legally reimplemented without meeting Sun's compatibility requirements and without obtaining licenses for several of Sun's patents (Sun has refrained to enforce that against open source, but as Unisys and SCO show you, you can cause trouble many years after some infringement has taken place). As a result, the Java platform is not open (i.e., an "open standard") in the long-established meaning of the term.
            This is completely wrong.
            You allways can implement a standard without ref
      • Please bother to read the article or at least follow the links in the headline. The licence you refer to is the SCSL. The article refers to a new licence, the JRL. I won't bother putting in the link because it is liseted above and anyone reading this can go and follow it as you should have done.

        Be aware that sun now offers its Java source code under two licences, one of which was not ordained by the FSF an an open source licence (SCSL) and the other (JRL) which has yet to be judged (although I strongly sus
        • The licence you refer to is the SCSL

          I'm referring to both the JRL and the SCSL. The JRL is so obviously and explicitly not an open source license that it doesn't even deserve a comment (either from me or from Debian). But since you brought it up...

          and the other (JRL) which has yet to be judged

          Don't try to create the impression that there is any ambiguity. The JRL is not open source; it allows the code to be used only for "research purposes" and prohibits "commercial use".

          Please bother to read the

    • Re:how open ? (Score:3, Informative)

      by k98sven ( 324383 )
      Quoting Dalibor Topic [advogato.org] (one of the leads on Kaffe [kaffe.org], the free JVM)

      Open Source Definition [opensource.org] vs. SCSL

      Free Redistribution

      Nope.

      Source Code

      Doesn't allow free redistribution, so redistribution in source code fails, too.

      Derived Works

      Nope.

      Integrity of The Author's Source Code

      Doesn't allow free distribution of separate modifications either.

      No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

      I guess it passes that one, yay!

      No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

      Nope. Explicitely limits fields of endeavor to research

  • Linux Support? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Has anyone been able to get this working with their Linux dist? I am using it under Ubuntu, and I am having a heck of a time. The JVM keeps spitting out these strange errors. I guess I could look more deeply at it, but I thought someone else may have gotten it to work.

  • be careful and think before you download (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geg81 ( 816215 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:06PM (#10742006)
    Yes, you can download the J2SE 5.0 source code. But once you do, you will be bound by Sun's source code license agreements. Some companies and open source projects interpret those license agreements in such a way that you will not be able to work on projects covering anything that overlaps with functionality in the Java distribution.

    I'd recommend you read Sun's licenses carefully in their entirety and think about its implications carefully before you download the source code and look at it.

    Furthermore, you should carefully think about what you are getting out of agreeing to the license and what Sun is getting out of it (I find Sun's licenses inequitable).

    If you want to find out how Java-like compilers and runtimes are developed and built, there are truly open source systems you might look at that don't saddle you with the kinds of restrictions Sun wants to impose on you (and they are likely better systems to learn from anyway).

  • That sure is 'open'... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) * on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:09PM (#10742017)
    7. Does this license require a click-through acceptance of terms?

    Yes. For enforceability, Sun requires a click-through license.

    This should tell you something - only a license that plans to restrict your rights in some unpleasant way requires a clickthrough. Seriously - I always get the willies from having to clickthrough to accept anything.

    14. Can I share my modifications with other researchers?

    Yes, provided that the other researchers have accepted the JRL.

    Cool, even my patches are subject to the license. I knew some doozy was coming that was going to restrict my usual rights. Thus the clickthrough love.

    8. When do I need to get a commercial license?

    This research license is only for initial research and development projects. If you decide to use your project internally for a productive use, and/or distribute your product to others, you must sign a commercial agreement and meet the java compatibility requirements.

    Uhhh... so let's see, I can use the Sun JRE free for any use. I can download the SCSL Java SDK source code, and while I can't redistribute it or do other Open Source style things with it, I can at least play with it and use it for internal things if I want (I think). But I can't even do that with the Java Research License, if it consists of 'productive use'? That sounds really ... useful to me.
    • Well heres a concept for you. SUN wrote it, they own it, they can do as they please with it, they can license it and the source in any manner they see fit. Thats their perogative because they created it. If you dont like it go build your own VM.
      • Of course it is. I never said "here's what they should do with it". I was reacting to the fanboyism in the Slashdot submission (who described it as an exciting new licensing option), not saying that Sun was doing anything inherently wrong.

        I don't blame them for being fearful about letting people fragment Java into incompatible factions and the like. Nonetheless, I still don't like clickthrough licenses, and I still think that telling somebody what they can do with their own copyrighted code is actually

    • Re:That sure is 'open'... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hollins ( 83264 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:35PM (#10742099) Homepage
      This should tell you something - only a license that plans to restrict your rights in some unpleasant way requires a clickthrough. Seriously - I always get the willies from having to clickthrough to accept anything.

      That's interesting, because the last time I installed firefox [mozilla.org], it required a clickthrough acceptance of the GPL. I didn't get any willies at all.

      • "That's interesting, because the last time I installed firefox, it required a clickthrough acceptance of the GPL"

        while Mandrake Linux has a click-through non-GPL license... reminds you of certain other operating-systems...
      • That's interesting, because the last time I installed firefox, it required a clickthrough acceptance of the GPL. I didn't get any willies at all.
        The GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. Firefox should still install even if you decline acceptance of the license. If it does not, it's a bug and should be fixed. A person can still redistribute Firefox and refuse to supply the source code, thereby violating the license, without ever installing it.
        • No, that's not how it works. A work is copyright by someone when they create it, whether or not it's registered with a copyright office. So that everyone can use it without infiging on their copyright, they license it for use. The license in this situation is the GPL. Now it's true that the details of the GPL cover distribution terms and not use terms. However, you must still accept their license to use the software. If you don't accept the license and continue to use it then you are infringing on the
          • No, you do NOT have to accept the GPL to merely use the software. By providing the software to you, the copyright holder is already allowing you to use it. The GPL even explicitly says that you needn't accept the license.

            When you buy a book, do you have to sign a license before you can read it? No. If you have a book, first sale allows you to read it without any specific license.
      • They were probably using some boilerplate installer that had a slot for licenseing terms, and they filled in with the GPL. Just a guess, I've seen it done before, though.

        It's a mistake, and the license doesn't require that you agree to it's terms before you install the software. (OTOH, it also doesn't make it legally required that you NOT have people agree to it before installing it.)
      • A) It's the Mozilla Public License, not the GPL, and this clickthrough was a relatively recent addition to Firefox (and there was a thread of serious debate in Bugzilla about an earlier, far more restrictive EULA that was proposed). B) It's a well known, well analyzed license that's been approved by the OSI [opensource.org], so you don't have to get the willies from it C) Most importantly, even the nastiest EULA for a binary installation of a piece of software can't claim to restrict your rights to do what you will with y
      • Real Hackers don't use binary distributions.
        (IANARealHacker)


    • "14. Can I share my modifications with other researchers? Yes, provided that the other researchers have accepted the JRL. Cool, even my patches are subject to the license. I knew some doozy was coming that was going to restrict my usual rights. Thus the clickthrough love."

      Can you please tell me what "rights" you have to the Java source code?

  • OS X (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:11PM (#10742024)
    So now, how long before someone builds a working J2SE 5.0 on OS X before Apple releases it ?
  • I was recently looking at the java source code for its threading implementation. Unfortunately, the method that specifically maps Java thread priorities to native OS thread priorities is a JNI call. In the readme for J2SE is says that such native C code isn't being distributed. Has that changed, or is this nothing more than a new licence on the existing src bundle?

  • I hope ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pegasus ( 13291 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:12PM (#10742031) Homepage
    we can now finally get a recent java for *BSD and more obscure linux platforms (linux/alpha, linux/ppc). I don't care about support, I just want to have it more or less working.
    • running java 1.4.2 on dragonflybsd - before jdk1.5 appeared (ie. until not too long ago) that definitely was recent enough

      http://www.freebsd.org/java/
    • I was thinking the same thing, though in fairness, you can get a 1.4.x version of Linux PPC from IBM. Getting some of the neat aux. libraries is left as an exercise for the reader.

      • The last version I got running on yellowdog was blackdown 1.3.1 (fcs-02b). Everything higher doesn't survive even 'java -version'.

  • If it were (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If it were OSI certified [opensource.org] then this would be interesting and very useful - however it isn't.

    I think Sun is a great company but it does irk me that they are dilly dallying on open sourcing the J2SE source code. I think it's some what inevitable that they will. Hopefully they will do it while it will allow OSS and Sun to make competitive advantage of it.
  • Listen, I'm not fully up to date about the arguments for why Java should be open source. If this isn't a GPL like license (is it?) then what good does it have being released? What are people expected to use this for? Will this mean Java is less secure? Are we going to start seeing java specific security issues? Why does anyone want the source code (besides the argument that if Sun went under a lot of applications would be out of support)?

    • Re:please explain it (Score:3, Interesting)

      by karniv0re ( 746499 )
      You must be new here. hehe. Couldn't resist. Welcome to Slashdot, where you will be invariably tormented for being new. Love the username, BTW.

      But, in reference to your questions,

      I refer to the text:

      12. Am I required to keep my research "java compatible?"

      No. The license encourages you to innovate and experiment using the java technology core. It is expected that research implementations will not be compatible with the Reference Implementation from Sun. This is ok.

      13. Can I publish my source c

  • J2SE 5.0 SCB4 1.5.0 SDK V2.0 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:42PM (#10742122)
    and they've already begun working on the next version of the source code bundle, tentatively titled:

    J2SE 5.0 SCB V2.0 SDK 1.5.0

    or for short, J5SV2S1.5
    • I realize that the parent is a joke, but can someone give me a little explanation as to the version naming of java. Why do they call it j2se 5 when it is java v1.5? I have only done a little dabbling in java so this confuses me a lot.
      • Sun has this nasty habit of somehow getting themselves stuck in a rut with a particular major version number. For example, Solaris started on version 2.x and got all the way up to 2.6 something like 10 years later. With version 2.7, they kinda just said 'fuck it, marketing can call it Solaris 7', and they did. But to this day, "uname -a" on a Solaris 9 box says "SunOS turing 5.9 Generic_112233-05 sun4u sparc". (SunOS 5.0 was Solaris 2.0. Don't think too hard about it;-) )

        I guess they decided that they were

  • PseudoOpenSourceLicense JRL = SCSL.clone(); (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:48PM (#10742504)
    Quoting Danese Cooper, Sun's open source diva:

    "IMHO (and IANAL) the JRL doesn't actually represent much of a change of terms from what the research and academic community could do under SCSL (there are some small changes around export), but it does clear away all the language in SCSL that is confusing, if you are only planning to engage in research."

    from http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2003/06/24/jrl.h tml

    On a first look, there is not much difference between the JRL and the research provisions in the SCSL. The language got a bit clearer, and a few of the most hillarious provisions have been dropped.

    Research projects like JikesRVM, ORP, OVM and others seem to prefer to use GNU Classpath, rather than have their hands tied by proprietary, non-permissive licenses. I'd expect more research projects to join into the GNU Classpath pool, which is free software, in the future.

    It's definitely a step ahead for Sun. Good luck on the rest of the road to freedom without fear[1].

    cheers,
    dalibor topic

    [1] Fear of forking, incompatibility, .net, Microsoft, IBM, Bea, or whatever the scare-of-the-day is, that prevents Sun from licensing their code under an OSI certified license.
  • I filed bugs against 1.5 beta and rc, but I'm still getting segfaults under heavy load on amd64, apparently related to an internal thread that runs when memory gets low.

    For everyone complaining that the license isn't free, this is an example of why it's still a good thing.

  • My advice... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NoMercy ( 105420 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @04:05PM (#10743062)
    Stay very well clear of it:

    "agreeing to this license (e.g. by downloading source covered by the SCSL) will make it impossible for you to contribute to free software clean-room implementations."

    I'm certanly not going to touch it, the pre-compiled stuff will do fine.

  • Well this was no fun... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dimator ( 71399 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @04:21PM (#10743128) Homepage Journal
    $ grep -ri -e fuck -e "[ \t]shit" .
    ./deploy/src/plugin/oji-plugin/src/motif/navig5 /JavaPluginFactory5.cpp: // The peice of shit browser does not seem to call Initialize

  • I said it before and I will say it again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:14PM (#10743631)
    I have yet to see a valid argument for why SUN doesnt release J2SE under an OSI complient licence.

    The argument that they want to be able to use the code in their own closed things, well they can do what OpenOffice.Org does and dual licence.

    There are clearly no arguments that can be made about "other peoples code", if there was anyone elses code in there, we wouldnt get to see it at all.

    As for the oft-pushed argument about forking, I said it before and I will say it again.
    What they need to do is to release the source code.
    Plus a testsuite.
    If you want to use the JAVA name on your particular binaries, those binaries must pass the testsuite.
    Releasing under a string copyleft like GPL that requires all source changes to be made public would also help stop forking because anything that is used can be added to the official sun tree.

    That way, anyone can use the source for whatever they like. But if you want to call something (be it modified from the SUN code or otherwise) JAVA, you have to pass the testsuite. That way, anything that has the JAVA logo on it (or whatever) is gauranteed not to be incompatible with SUNs VM.
    A good cpoyleft licence would also prevent what happened with Microsoft from happening again (since any additions could be added to the SUN VM)

  • license (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zxflash ( 773348 )
    hopefully with some popularity the license will be revised a little

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close