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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Java Oracle Open Source

Oracle Now Wants To Give Java EE to an Open Source Foundation (infoworld.com) 106

An anonymous reader quotes InfoWorld: Oracle wants to end its leadership in the development of enterprise Java and is looking for an open source foundation to take on the role. The company said Thursday that the upcoming Java EE (Enterprise Edition) 8 presents an opportunity to rethink how the platform is developed. Although development is done via open source with community participation, the current Oracle-led process is not seen as agile, flexible, or open enough. "We believe that moving Java EE technologies to an open source foundation may be the right next step, to adopt more agile processes, implement more flexible licensing and change the governance process," Oracle said in a statement...

Despite its desire to retreat from Java EE leadership, Oracle said it plans to continue participating in the evolution of Java EE technologies. "But we believe a more open process, that is not dependent on a single vendor as platform lead, will encourage greater participation and innovation, and will be in best interests of the community"... Oracle's goals for offloading Java EE would have Oracle not lead the project as it still effectively does with Java SE.

Red Hat's senior principal product manager called this "a very positive move," while Eclipse's executive director said that moving Java EE to a vendor-neutral open source foundation "would be great for both the platform and the community," adding "If asked to so, the Eclipse Foundation would be pleased to serve as the host organization."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Now Wants To Give Java EE to an Open Source Foundation

Comments Filter:
  • Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darkain ( 749283 ) on Saturday August 19, 2017 @12:35PM (#55048577) Homepage

    "We can't milk this for licensing money anymore, so we no longer want to invest in it"

    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Saturday August 19, 2017 @12:40PM (#55048595)

      "We can't milk this for licensing money anymore, so we no longer want to invest in it"

      "Yay, if Oracle hands Java EE over to a FOSS foundation we can finally fix all the things that are wrong with Java and that we've been bitching about Oracle being unwilling to fix for years."

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Will they stop suing Google for using the API?

    • It was not for their lack of trying. Heck they even went after Google for their use in Android, but GPL prevailed on that one.
      • What should the GPL have to do with the Oracle / Google fight over Android?

        • "Fair use" once Java was released under GPL(2007). Appeals court agreed. [eff.org]. However Oracle filed another appeal, so it seems that is not over yet.
          • Fair use, especially reimplementing an API, has nothing to do with the GPL.

            • The fair use direction was just what Oracle tried under the Copyright Act because the Patent path was denied when Sun released to GPL. I believe the appeals court got it wrong in 2013 as section 102(a) does not have any reference to programming language and it does NOT fall into the categories listed (methinks Oracle found a judge to fudge the interpretation), so 102(b) should have applied.
        • Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)

          by rholtzjr ( 928771 ) on Saturday August 19, 2017 @02:56PM (#55049115) Journal
          And yes, I understand that this eventually became Java API vs just Java (which in my opinion was a "ooops we want a do over" by Oracle AFTER they saw Android take off). The first judge I believe had it right in the first place. And he expressed his concerns (excerpt [techdirt.com]):

          Each command calls into action a pre-assigned function. The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability.

    • by jhol13 ( 1087781 )

      No.
      Translation: Too litlle too late. Java died with generics. Every other (recent) language is going away, Perl, Python, Ruby, ...

  • by Martin S. ( 98249 ) <Martin...Spamer@@@gmail...com> on Saturday August 19, 2017 @12:46PM (#55048613) Homepage Journal

    This is good for Java and good for Oracle.

    Java has become mired in bureaucracy under Oracle.
    Java is not a core produce for Oracle, but a cost.

    • Java has become mired in bureaucracy under Oracle.

      I am not sure going FOSS will help. There are so many parties invested in Java these days, that even if going FOSS, and in order not to explode into a thousand irrelevant forks, Java will remain mired in bureaucracy. It wasn't Oracle that created the bureaucracy, that was a huge millstone around Java's neck way back when Sun owned it.

  • Fix the installer (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    At last the runtime isntaller can stop trying to mess with my browser settings and anoying me with popups to do an update?

    • by arth1 ( 260657 )

      At last the runtime isntaller can stop trying to mess with my browser settings and anoying me with popups to do an update?

      This is Java EE (Enterprise Edition), not the Java SE runtime that integrates with your web browser. Many if not most machines that run Java EE won't have a display or a web browser.

    • Java EE does not have an installer. You're thinking of Java SE.

  • I really hope Oracle hands off Java to Eclipse or Apache. That would make me happy.
    • Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)

      by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Saturday August 19, 2017 @02:02PM (#55048901) Homepage Journal

      Apache Foundation and Red Hat seem to be the two entities that may have enough momentum to absorb something this big. Eclipse would be nice, but can they grow that much that quickly without hurting their core?

      Anyhow, beware of Ellisons bearing gifts.

      • Apache Foundation and Red Hat seem to be the two entities that may have enough momentum to absorb something this big. Eclipse would be nice, but can they grow that much that quickly without hurting their core?

        Anyhow, beware of Ellisons bearing gifts.

        Not necessary. Just throw it up on GitHub and open an issue torrent.

  • Where will I get my yahoo toolbar for my browser?
    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Where will I get my yahoo toolbar for my browser?

      The Nigerian Prince still offers it. Just keep an eye on your inbox for an announcement.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Give it to Mozilla, it's where open source software goes to die.

  • Put it in the public domain. Can't get much more open than that.

    And what is an "Open Source Foudation"? Sound pretty weaselly to me. A tax dodge perhaps?

    • Put it in the public domain. Can't get much more open than that.

      Until someone forks an incompatible version, and hides the changes. The GPL is designed to keep that from happening.

      Be careful when you wish for something to be put in the public domain. Even though the forked binary blobs will eventually be public domain, there is no guarantee that the source ever will be.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I remember reading in a comment here that Eclipse was named after the intent to blot out the Sun (Microsystems). Looks like they'll have that opportunity.
    • I remember reading in a comment here that Eclipse was named after the intent to blot out the Sun (Microsystems). Looks like they'll have that opportunity.

      I think the market eclipsed Sun before Eclipse did. But I agree with your point.

      And in light of this, I propose that we declare Monday, August 21, 2017 to be Open-Source Java Day. Because Eclipse.

  • minor version number changes breaking API so apps no longer worked, that's the big problem Java EE under Oracle has. Incidentally, it's now also the problem the Oracle DBMS has had since version 10.x

  • I hungry for an JBC interpreter on iOS since ages.
    We have ahead of time compilers like Avian, but an interpreter would allow to work more with reflection, bytecode morphing, runtime code generation, integration of languages like Groovy, useable for scripting the main application.
    Something like HyperCard, runnning in a JVM with Groovy as scripting language ...

  • If Oracle wants to kill it off, just give it to some organization that requires all future contributions to be licensed under the GPL without a classpath exception. Say goodbye to development of commercial Java software like the original Minecraft.

    • and the BSD license would allow the original minecraft.

      • BSD - truly free as in freedom.
        • BSD - truly free as in freedom.

          Until someone forks an incompatible version and hides the changes. Then you can't see the source of the software running on your system. No more freedom for you.

          You can't have true freedom without giving up a little of it. The GPL is a reasonable compromise.

          • Wrong - you're completely free to use the non-forked version. Forks are just that - forks. The original, under the original license, still continues to exist.

            And it should be the developer's choice as to what they feel is a reasonable compromise - not the user. The user is always free - completely free - to vote with their feet / dollars. If they make something that's closed source that people feel is worth the price, how has anyone's freedom been compromised?

            • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

              Wrong - you're completely free to use the non-forked version. Forks are just that - forks.

              Until you get forked, then you're completely forked and everything is a forking mess.

        • BSD - truly free as in freedom.

          BSD, freer for developers, less free for users. GPL, less free for developers, freer for users. Computers exist to serve users, not the other way around. That's why Linux is more popular than BSD, today, even though BSD started with a massive lead.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            This is a silly talking point. Users and developers are not completely separate entities, and even if they were, that wouldn't explain why the GPL is popular, since it is developers who choose the license. GPL vs BSD choice is simply developer preference vs. developer preference.

            BSD is definitely the freer licence, and GPL definitely promotes a goal a significant number of developers like more. Don't pretend otherwise.

            • This is a silly talking point. Users and developers are not completely separate entities, and even if they were, that wouldn't explain why the GPL is popular, since it is developers who choose the license.

              Many of the developers who made Linux great have explicitly stated that they chose to contribute to Linux specifically because of the license, and that it preserves freedom for other users. Don't be disingenuous. That only impresses idiots.

              • And what does that have to do with the fact that the BSD license is, in absolute terms, freer? There's nothing in it that restricts developers from releasing their source code, same as the GPL. The freedom to choose the license should be up to the developer. The freedom to use the product should be up to the user.

                The GPL imposes requirements on both the developer and the user that don't exist with the BSD license. Developers must be able to supply source for any program they distribute, and users who want

                • And what does that have to do with the fact that the BSD license is, in absolute terms, freer?

                  It is absolutely a freer license, in practice, for developers who are making use of the code. It is absolutely a less free license, in practice, for users who would like to benefit from open source. They are less likely to get the code actually used in their devices if it is BSD-licensed. It absolutely depends on your point of view, and if your point of view is not that of the users, then your point of view is a minority one.

                  The GPL imposes requirements on both the developer and the user that don't exist with the BSD license.

                  That's false. Users do not have to do anything to comply with the GPL unless they a

            • Developers ARE users. Haven't you seen Tron?
              • Developers ARE users. Haven't you seen Tron?

                Tron is one of my favorite movies, but the majority of users are not developers.

  • But I guess I should not be surprised, it is slashduh after all.

  • by Yonsy ( 4065021 ) on Saturday August 19, 2017 @02:08PM (#55048941)
    They release this, and in many cases after become polluted by the same Oracle. OpenOffice is practically dead, Hudson is a dead corpse now when you talk about CI, Netbeans was proposed by the same Oracle for pass to an Apache Incubator project. MySQL is in a close match against MariaDB and Percona, after stupid attempts to complicate the release of the source code.

    This will be the first time that Oracle give the product BEFORE screw up and kill this, after almost 7 years (Sun acquisition by Oracle finished in 2010). I maintain my doubts, more based in the privative licenses that Oracle can have in several JEE components, before gives this to an Open Community. This was an attempt with OpenJDK and OracleJDK "differences".
    • by kn ( 167667 )

      You missed OpenSolaris, perhaps their biggest fuck up of all. Disappointingly, all of this was totally foreseeable before the acquisition. IBM would have been a much better home for Sun.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Java EE pretty much just waits for other people to come up with solutions, then they get a bunch of PhDs together to construct a specification and implementation that's overly complex and complicated ("It's theoretically perfect!"); that's full of badly-named classes, methods, and annotations (because all the intuitive names are already taken by the framework they're trying to keep people from realizing they're unsuccessfully ripping off); and is functionality inferior in a multitude of ways ("If we added t

  • Nice (Score:5, Funny)

    by grumpy-cowboy ( 4342983 ) on Saturday August 19, 2017 @02:52PM (#55049105)

    Can we now integrate it to systemd please.

  • Let them both die!

    Dinosaurs.

    Messy messes IDEing messy messes.

  • Fuck you, in your stupid fucking face, you greedy bastards. I hope you choke on the bile that you are trying vomit upon us. ;)

    • Fuck you, in your stupid fucking face, you greedy bastards. I hope you choke on the bile that you are trying vomit upon us. ;)

      I hear you, dude. There are many here who would like Larry Ellison to go fuck himself.

      Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he married himself.

      • Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he married himself.

        That's some crazy dennis rodman shit right there. Maybe he's also friends with Fat Un. ;)

  • Java EE != Java (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19, 2017 @05:07PM (#55049607)

    Java EE is a set of libraries written in Java to build "Enterprise applications". I don't know anyone who uses Java EE as it has been largely replaced with Spring Framework (which pretty much does the same thing, only better). So Oracle giving up on Java EE is nothing new or significant as they still own and control the Java platform. The "EE" in the name makes a huge difference...

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Well...

      What's happened is that Java EE has adopted inversion of control, which was popularized by Spring; it's not the same as being "replaced by" Spring.

      The reason you probably don't know anyone using Java EE is that it does something which is quite useful to a very small number of applications: it makes it easy to create operations that are both atomic and distributed. But that means it's not "scaleable" by modern Internet standards of scalability where consistency requirements are typically relaxed to

    • Java EE is more than Spring offers as 'alternative'.

      E.g. SOAP and REST based on annotations. Or lets say, Java EE defines them and Spring impements parts it sees fit and gives alternatives to other parts.

      Spring was a nice alternative when EJBs still were heavy weight. Right now I don't realy see a reason for it.

  • by SpaghettiPattern ( 609814 ) on Saturday August 19, 2017 @05:25PM (#55049687)

    Java EE - Java SE = stuff we can do without more and more.

    Java EE > Java SE, meaning everything.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Why not?

  • Seems the obvious choice would be the Libre Foundation, but my snarky humorous side would love to see Google take over and somehow use the stewardship in their never-ending fight with Ellison et all...

Why did the Roman Empire collapse? What is the Latin for office automation?

Working...