You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by theUser BL <th...@hotmail.com> on 2006/06/06 16:03:56 UTC
Releationship to GNU Classpath?
Hi!
Can anybody at Harmony say, whats the releationship (or non-releationship)
to GNU Classpath is?
At the beginning of Apache Harmony it sounds, that Harmony would use GNU
Classpath for its class libraries.
But since Intel have spend Harmony its own Swing implementation, it is
clear, that there would existing two OpenSource Java-implementations: GNU
Classpath based VMs and Apache Harmony.
Thats the comment of someone from GNU Classpath, how its poit of view about
Harmony and GNU Classpath is:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14198&comment_id=110641
And here are two blog-entries:
http://metastatic.org/text/Concern/2006/05/30/harmony/
http://kennke.org/cgi-bin/blosxom/2006/05/30#harmony-jfc
The situation is the following:
GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony are both OpenSource projects to create an
OpenSource Java.
So, both have the same goal.
Then there existing developer, who writes code for Harmony and others who
writes code for GNU Classpath. Thats duplicated work. And if both groups
would working on _one_ class-implementation together, they could be faster
then, if both groups would reinvent the wheel itself.
Is the reason the different licenses?
Then Miguel de Icaze is right, if he wrote at
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2005/May-07.html
that the MIT/X11 license is the best, because its the least common
denominator for all
(btw: the last Java-articel by Micual is at
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19-2.html)
Or have GNU Classpath and Harmony different point of viewes how to implement
something?
Or could it be possible, that GNU Classpath developer could also publish its
code under the ASL2 ?
Or that Harmony developer could also publish its code under the GNU
Classpath-license?
So, that not all the work is duplicated done.
I also thought about Harmony and GNU Classpath on the GNU Classpath
mailinglist at
http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2006-June/000956.html
and the only answer is
http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2006-June/000965.html
As I have said before: For me it looks, that two projects doing the same
thing with the same goal, but without interaction to each other.
Greatings
theuserbl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Releationship to GNU Classpath?
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:33:40AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> theUser BL wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Can anybody at Harmony say, whats the releationship (or
> > non-releationship) to GNU Classpath is?
>
> There is no official relationship, but there's lots of awareness and
> chatter. It's not as strong/robust/whatever as I'd like, and it's
> something to work on.
>
It'll be stronger once there is shared code, and that's something for
next year. :)
Meanwhile, I'd like to see the JCP turn into something actually useful for J2SE
implementors, with a freely accessible TCK to all parties, rather than the
current practice which prohibits collaboration between projects
implementing the same specs. It's time for a JCP 2.7, with a focus on
improving the quality of specs, enabling open source implementations, and
actual transparency for J2SE JSRs, so that we never again need to waste
our time with artificial barriers between spec implementors.
> > At the beginning of Apache Harmony it sounds, that Harmony would use GNU
> > Classpath for its class libraries.
>
> No - we certainly didn't commit to anything of the sort, but certainly
> there was and continues to be interest in working together on common
> solutions to modularity and VM/classlib interface, setting us up for a
> time when the GPL gets fixed next year ;) so users have freedom to
> intermix code.
Yeah. Users can do that today already, but I don't think anyone has
stepped up to the plate to do it yet.
> >
> > But since Intel have spend Harmony its own Swing implementation, it is
> > clear, that there would existing two OpenSource Java-implementations:
> > GNU Classpath based VMs and Apache Harmony.
>
> Clearly. There are actually more than two, depending on how you think
> about it. There is Apache Harmony, which will be full Java SE (vm and
> classlib) and then you'll probably see combinations, assuming people go
> and get the TCK and test :
>
> GNUClasspath + Kaffe
> GNUClasspath + JamVM
> ...
> GNUCLasspath + HarmonyVM
>
> and hopefully
>
> Harmony Classlib + Kaffe
> ....
We'll have to wait for GPLv3 for Harmony to be distributable as part of
GPLd VMs.
> > Thats the comment of someone from GNU Classpath, how its poit of view
> > about Harmony and GNU Classpath is:
> > http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14198&comment_id=110641
> >
> > And here are two blog-entries:
> > http://metastatic.org/text/Concern/2006/05/30/harmony/
> > http://kennke.org/cgi-bin/blosxom/2006/05/30#harmony-jfc
>
> I posted a response to the first one, as I thought the characterization
> was unfair, as I think the author didn't really follow the project that
> closely.
>
> Yes, we are getting big contributions and yes, it's helping us move
> forward fast, and no, I certainly won't apologize for it. All of the
> work that happens once software reaches Harmony is done in the open, on
> our mail lists, our JIRA and our Wiki.... it's an Apache project.
>
> >
> > The situation is the following:
> > GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony are both OpenSource projects to create
> > an OpenSource Java.
> > So, both have the same goal.
>
> Yes - helping prove one of the nice aspects of the Java ecosystem, that
> it's spec based, and multiple independent implementations can be created
> to give users choices.
I'd also love to see both drive the quality of the current specs in the
J2SE field up, since it is partially embarassingly low (HTMLWidget).
For that, we'll need a new JCP, though, that focuses on quality & open
source community participation, rather than whatever it is focusing on now.
> >
> > Then there existing developer, who writes code for Harmony and others
> > who writes code for GNU Classpath. Thats duplicated work. And if both
> > groups would working on _one_ class-implementation together, they could
> > be faster then, if both groups would reinvent the wheel itself.
>
> Sure it's duplicated work, but choice and diversity is good. People
> are volunteering their time/resources so it's hard to tell them "no".
>
> I think the whole Java ecosystem benefits from this.
>
> >
> > Is the reason the different licenses?
> >
>
> That's certainly a reason for some people.
>
> > Then Miguel de Icaze is right, if he wrote at
> > http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2005/May-07.html
> > that the MIT/X11 license is the best, because its the least common
> > denominator for all
> > (btw: the last Java-articel by Micual is at
> > http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19-2.html)
> >
> > Or have GNU Classpath and Harmony different point of viewes how to
> > implement something?
>
> Sure. Definitely. We had a greenfield in which to implement our
> modularity ideas. So far, it's worked exceedingly well in terms of
> developer productivity, and I'm excited to see what happens as people
> wish to provide alternative implementations of the modules (such as a
> security module that uses some kind of hardware accelerator...)
>
> >
> > Or could it be possible, that GNU Classpath developer could also publish
> > its code under the ASL2 ?
>
> Of course they can. (It's AL2, btw... there is no word "Software" in
> "Apache License")
>
> > Or that Harmony developer could also publish its code under the GNU
> > Classpath-license?
>
> Any contributor to Harmony, be it an individual or a corporation, is
> free to license their work under as many licenses as they wish, as long
> as it's not a derivative of someone elses work....
Yeah, the projects are 'plug-compatible' regarding contribution processes.
> > So, that not all the work is duplicated done.
> >
> > I also thought about Harmony and GNU Classpath on the GNU Classpath
> > mailinglist at
> > http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2006-June/000956.html
> > and the only answer is
> > http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2006-June/000965.html
> >
> >
> > As I have said before: For me it looks, that two projects doing the same
> > thing with the same goal, but without interaction to each other.
>
> We certainly could and should talk more.
We also need more actions, though, be it sharing code, be it fixing the JCP, be it working together on the TCK.
cheers,
dalibor topic
> geir
>
> >
> >
> > Greatings
> > theuserbl
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Releationship to GNU Classpath?
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
theUser BL wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Can anybody at Harmony say, whats the releationship (or
> non-releationship) to GNU Classpath is?
There is no official relationship, but there's lots of awareness and
chatter. It's not as strong/robust/whatever as I'd like, and it's
something to work on.
>
> At the beginning of Apache Harmony it sounds, that Harmony would use GNU
> Classpath for its class libraries.
No - we certainly didn't commit to anything of the sort, but certainly
there was and continues to be interest in working together on common
solutions to modularity and VM/classlib interface, setting us up for a
time when the GPL gets fixed next year ;) so users have freedom to
intermix code.
>
> But since Intel have spend Harmony its own Swing implementation, it is
> clear, that there would existing two OpenSource Java-implementations:
> GNU Classpath based VMs and Apache Harmony.
Clearly. There are actually more than two, depending on how you think
about it. There is Apache Harmony, which will be full Java SE (vm and
classlib) and then you'll probably see combinations, assuming people go
and get the TCK and test :
GNUClasspath + Kaffe
GNUClasspath + JamVM
...
GNUCLasspath + HarmonyVM
and hopefully
Harmony Classlib + Kaffe
....
>
> Thats the comment of someone from GNU Classpath, how its poit of view
> about Harmony and GNU Classpath is:
> http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14198&comment_id=110641
>
> And here are two blog-entries:
> http://metastatic.org/text/Concern/2006/05/30/harmony/
> http://kennke.org/cgi-bin/blosxom/2006/05/30#harmony-jfc
I posted a response to the first one, as I thought the characterization
was unfair, as I think the author didn't really follow the project that
closely.
Yes, we are getting big contributions and yes, it's helping us move
forward fast, and no, I certainly won't apologize for it. All of the
work that happens once software reaches Harmony is done in the open, on
our mail lists, our JIRA and our Wiki.... it's an Apache project.
>
> The situation is the following:
> GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony are both OpenSource projects to create
> an OpenSource Java.
> So, both have the same goal.
Yes - helping prove one of the nice aspects of the Java ecosystem, that
it's spec based, and multiple independent implementations can be created
to give users choices.
>
> Then there existing developer, who writes code for Harmony and others
> who writes code for GNU Classpath. Thats duplicated work. And if both
> groups would working on _one_ class-implementation together, they could
> be faster then, if both groups would reinvent the wheel itself.
Sure it's duplicated work, but choice and diversity is good. People
are volunteering their time/resources so it's hard to tell them "no".
I think the whole Java ecosystem benefits from this.
>
> Is the reason the different licenses?
>
That's certainly a reason for some people.
> Then Miguel de Icaze is right, if he wrote at
> http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2005/May-07.html
> that the MIT/X11 license is the best, because its the least common
> denominator for all
> (btw: the last Java-articel by Micual is at
> http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19-2.html)
>
> Or have GNU Classpath and Harmony different point of viewes how to
> implement something?
Sure. Definitely. We had a greenfield in which to implement our
modularity ideas. So far, it's worked exceedingly well in terms of
developer productivity, and I'm excited to see what happens as people
wish to provide alternative implementations of the modules (such as a
security module that uses some kind of hardware accelerator...)
>
> Or could it be possible, that GNU Classpath developer could also publish
> its code under the ASL2 ?
Of course they can. (It's AL2, btw... there is no word "Software" in
"Apache License")
> Or that Harmony developer could also publish its code under the GNU
> Classpath-license?
Any contributor to Harmony, be it an individual or a corporation, is
free to license their work under as many licenses as they wish, as long
as it's not a derivative of someone elses work....
> So, that not all the work is duplicated done.
>
> I also thought about Harmony and GNU Classpath on the GNU Classpath
> mailinglist at
> http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2006-June/000956.html
> and the only answer is
> http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2006-June/000965.html
>
>
> As I have said before: For me it looks, that two projects doing the same
> thing with the same goal, but without interaction to each other.
We certainly could and should talk more.
geir
>
>
> Greatings
> theuserbl
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Releationship to GNU Classpath?
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> As much as I appreciate people trying to get yet another discussion going,
> it's all already said in the archives, so there is little need to keep
> bringing up the subject on either GNU Classpath or Harmony lists. :)
>
> The story of opening J2EE shows that one can attract
> strategic contributions that would not happen otherwise if one creates
> a single project with a single goal and a single license.
>
> As long as Harmony keeps shaking out code that'd be left closed away
> otherwise, I think it's doing fine. Having two,three implementations to work
> with is much less of a problem than having none.
+1
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Releationship to GNU Classpath?
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 04:52:14PM +0200, David Tanzer wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Cool, one of the easy questions again ;)
>
> Ok, first of all, Mark Wielaard has written an interesting article on
> LWN about the status of GNU Classpath which also discusses the
> relationship to HY from his point of view:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/184967/
>
> Of course Dalibor's article is great too, but this one is much newer
> and really interesting to read.
>
> I talked to some Classpath people at FOSDEM 06 (http://fosdem.org) about
> this because I am too interested in not burning all the bridges. While some
> of them are quite disappointed about how things are now others don't seem
> to have a problem with us or how we handle this situation. I'm not sure if
> i should write their names here, maybe the people I'm talking about could
> stand up (you know who you are ;) ).
Standing. :)
>
> More comments inline...
>
> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 14:03 +0000, theUser BL wrote:
> [Snip]
> > And here are two blog-entries:
> > http://metastatic.org/text/Concern/2006/05/30/harmony/
> > http://kennke.org/cgi-bin/blosxom/2006/05/30#harmony-jfc
>
> Well, that's what I think about the comments from Roman and Casey
> (I won't repeat it here):
>
> http://davidtanzer.net/?q=node/42
Whatever works best for Harmony's contributors is what's best for it.
>
> [Snip]
> > Then there existing developer, who writes code for Harmony and others who
> > writes code for GNU Classpath. Thats duplicated work. And if both groups
> > would working on _one_ class-implementation together, they could be faster
> > then, if both groups would reinvent the wheel itself.
>
> Well, competing implementations is not a completely negative thing.
> Diversity is a chance and not a problem, especially in free software
> projects. Look for example at Gnome and KDE which now exist next to
> each other for years, and both are still alive.
Full ACK. I'd say that Harmony & Classpath are actually conceptually
much closer than Gnome/KDE and could collaborate quote efficiently
eventually, since they need to implement the same specs. Otoh, there is
a lot of political value in having a separate J2SE lever in the JCP for
some J2SE vendors, I assume. :)
> > Is the reason the different licenses?
>
> There was lots of discussion about these things on harmony-dev during
> the time when I still wrote the mailing list summaries, they are online
> here:
>
> http://davidtanzer.net/?q=taxonomy/term/5
>
> But basically: Yes, one of the reasons is the different license.
Structurally, the ASF can not enter a licensing compromise, due to
the way the "contributors license code to ASF under the ASL2.0 only"
system works. Fortunately, the FSF is more flexible, due to to the way
FSF's copyright assignment system works, and will include improvements
in the language of the the GPLv3 that address concerns expressed by
memebers of the ASF, and will explicitely allow for patent-retaliation
language like ASLv2's to be GPLv3 compatible.
What happens after that will be up to the ASF, and is hard to predict.
> [Snip]
> > Or could it be possible, that GNU Classpath developer could also publish its
> > code under the ASL2 ?
> > Or that Harmony developer could also publish its code under the GNU
> > Classpath-license?
>
> Yes and yes, But: There are some issues with dual licensing (Dalibor
> mentioned one in his comment on OSNews). For example, here at the ASF
> the copyright holders of the code are the developers themselves, not
> the ASF. This means I could write some code, contribute it to HY under
> AL2 and also license it under... say... BSD license. But when someone
> else changes the code in HY the changes are only licensed under AL2,
> so all contributors would have to dual-license all the code they write,
> and I don't think that's desired.
That's easily resolved if contributors wish to do it. You use either FSF
or ASF as upstream, and synchronize changes by encouraging people to
collaborate, rather than working in their own walled off gardens.
That has worked really well in GNU Classpath so far, I don't see why it
wouldn't work here.
> [Snip]
> > As I have said before: For me it looks, that two projects doing the same
> > thing with the same goal, but without interaction to each other.
>
> Yes, kind of. Maybe this will change again in the future, maybe not.
> But I'm pretty sure that both projects (or all the projects if you also
> count the VMs that use Gnu Classpath) can exist next to each other.
Sure. They'll be able to exist even with the (eventual) arrival of the
third independant implementation, from Sun. They all target different
audiences, basically.
As much as I appreciate people trying to get yet another discussion going,
it's all already said in the archives, so there is little need to keep
bringing up the subject on either GNU Classpath or Harmony lists. :)
The story of opening J2EE shows that one can attract
strategic contributions that would not happen otherwise if one creates
a single project with a single goal and a single license.
As long as Harmony keeps shaking out code that'd be left closed away
otherwise, I think it's doing fine. Having two,three implementations to work
with is much less of a problem than having none.
cheers,
dalibor topic
> Cheers,
> David Tanzer.
>
> >
> >
> > Greatings
> > theuserbl
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> --
> David Tanzer, Haghofstrasse 29, 3352 St. Peter / Au, Austria
> http://davidtanzer.net - http://dev.guglhupf.net - http://guglhupf.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Releationship to GNU Classpath?
Posted by David Tanzer <st...@guglhupf.net>.
Hi!
Cool, one of the easy questions again ;)
Ok, first of all, Mark Wielaard has written an interesting article on
LWN about the status of GNU Classpath which also discusses the
relationship to HY from his point of view:
http://lwn.net/Articles/184967/
Of course Dalibor's article is great too, but this one is much newer
and really interesting to read.
I talked to some Classpath people at FOSDEM 06 (http://fosdem.org) about
this because I am too interested in not burning all the bridges. While some
of them are quite disappointed about how things are now others don't seem
to have a problem with us or how we handle this situation. I'm not sure if
i should write their names here, maybe the people I'm talking about could
stand up (you know who you are ;) ).
More comments inline...
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 14:03 +0000, theUser BL wrote:
[Snip]
> And here are two blog-entries:
> http://metastatic.org/text/Concern/2006/05/30/harmony/
> http://kennke.org/cgi-bin/blosxom/2006/05/30#harmony-jfc
Well, that's what I think about the comments from Roman and Casey
(I won't repeat it here):
http://davidtanzer.net/?q=node/42
[Snip]
> Then there existing developer, who writes code for Harmony and others who
> writes code for GNU Classpath. Thats duplicated work. And if both groups
> would working on _one_ class-implementation together, they could be faster
> then, if both groups would reinvent the wheel itself.
Well, competing implementations is not a completely negative thing.
Diversity is a chance and not a problem, especially in free software
projects. Look for example at Gnome and KDE which now exist next to
each other for years, and both are still alive.
> Is the reason the different licenses?
There was lots of discussion about these things on harmony-dev during
the time when I still wrote the mailing list summaries, they are online
here:
http://davidtanzer.net/?q=taxonomy/term/5
But basically: Yes, one of the reasons is the different license.
[Snip]
> Or could it be possible, that GNU Classpath developer could also publish its
> code under the ASL2 ?
> Or that Harmony developer could also publish its code under the GNU
> Classpath-license?
Yes and yes, But: There are some issues with dual licensing (Dalibor
mentioned one in his comment on OSNews). For example, here at the ASF
the copyright holders of the code are the developers themselves, not
the ASF. This means I could write some code, contribute it to HY under
AL2 and also license it under... say... BSD license. But when someone
else changes the code in HY the changes are only licensed under AL2,
so all contributors would have to dual-license all the code they write,
and I don't think that's desired.
[Snip]
> As I have said before: For me it looks, that two projects doing the same
> thing with the same goal, but without interaction to each other.
Yes, kind of. Maybe this will change again in the future, maybe not.
But I'm pretty sure that both projects (or all the projects if you also
count the VMs that use Gnu Classpath) can exist next to each other.
Cheers,
David Tanzer.
>
>
> Greatings
> theuserbl
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
David Tanzer, Haghofstrasse 29, 3352 St. Peter / Au, Austria
http://davidtanzer.net - http://dev.guglhupf.net - http://guglhupf.net