You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> on 2007/08/09 06:50:29 UTC
Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news
But the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
compatibility kit terms.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> do you mind to send this mail to the committers@ address ?
NO. committers@ is not a discussion list.
community@ is the discussion-list of any and all committers,
subscription optional so it's not spam.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Stephen,
do you mind to send this mail to the committers@ address ?
-Matthias
On 8/12/07, Stephen Colebourne <sc...@joda.org> wrote:
> Steve Loughran wrote:
> > But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
> > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
> > back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product release
> > tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code for the rest of
> > august. Because there are other things out there, and the one that
> > interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start the first erlang-related
> > work at apache, I think
>
> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly enforced.
>
> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next step
> response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to realise that
> they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
>
> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on Java to
> have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Stephen
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Dion Gillard <di...@apache.org>.
Seems like a WOFTAE to me.
If I wanted to explore Mono, Ruby, Erlang etc, I'd already be doing it.
It seems that it would be punishing the ASF communities (committers, users
etc) for Sun's actions, and sending a message that the ASF much like Big
Brother (the novel incarnation, not the tv).
On 8/12/07, Stephen Colebourne <sc...@joda.org> wrote:
>
> Steve Loughran wrote:
> > But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
> > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
> > back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product release
> > tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code for the rest of
> > august. Because there are other things out there, and the one that
> > interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start the first erlang-related
> > work at apache, I think
>
> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly enforced.
>
> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next step
> response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to realise that
> they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
>
> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on Java to
> have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Stephen
>
--
dIon Gillard
Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 3:01 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly
> enforced.
>
> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next
> step response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to
> realise that they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
>
> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on
> Java to have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>
> Any thoughts?
Not sure its good for users of our projects. Seems to end up
punishing them. I do like Emmanuel's twist. Documentation, what's
that ? :)
>
> Stephen
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
It would be more interesting to see "explore mono" and
http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight
especially. That is the stuff of good press releases.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Love the plan :)
>
> -- dims
>
> On 8/12/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on Java to
>>> have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>>>
>> Or spending one full week writing documentation ;) So that you hit two
>> birds with a single stone !
>>
>> Emmanuel.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Cordialement,
>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>> www.iktek.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Love the plan :)
-- dims
On 8/12/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> > Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on Java to
> > have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>
> Or spending one full week writing documentation ;) So that you hit two
> birds with a single stone !
>
> Emmanuel.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Hi Stephen,
> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on Java to
> have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
Or spending one full week writing documentation ;) So that you hit two
birds with a single stone !
Emmanuel.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
By making sure their project run well when using harmony? :)
-- dims
On 8/13/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> We could change that to "let all people involved in Java development
> help out the Harmony project for one week".
>
> Personally, I do not believe in striking actions. One of our biggest
> USPs is our pragmatism. We should not compromise it.
>
> Folks, Geir, as VP JCP, and the board do have a game plan. We can all
> rant and rave, but best thing IMHO would be to run "business as usual"
> and wait for that plan to run its course.
>
> Best regards
> Henning
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 11:01 +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > Steve Loughran wrote:
> > > But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
> > > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
> > > back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product release
> > > tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code for the rest of
> > > august. Because there are other things out there, and the one that
> > > interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start the first erlang-related
> > > work at apache, I think
> >
> > This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
> > development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
> > voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly enforced.
> >
> > It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next step
> > response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to realise that
> > they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
> >
> > Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on Java to
> > have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Stephen
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
We could change that to "let all people involved in Java development
help out the Harmony project for one week".
Personally, I do not believe in striking actions. One of our biggest
USPs is our pragmatism. We should not compromise it.
Folks, Geir, as VP JCP, and the board do have a game plan. We can all
rant and rave, but best thing IMHO would be to run "business as usual"
and wait for that plan to run its course.
Best regards
Henning
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 11:01 +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Steve Loughran wrote:
> > But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
> > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
> > back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product release
> > tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code for the rest of
> > august. Because there are other things out there, and the one that
> > interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start the first erlang-related
> > work at apache, I think
>
> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly enforced.
>
> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next step
> response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to realise that
> they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
>
> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on Java to
> have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Stephen
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> WHY NOT SUSPEND PARTICIPATION IN THE JCP -- THE ROOT OF THE ACTUAL
>> PROBLEM!!!
>
> That is a possible outcome. But we're not ready to give up yet.
I'd personally be strongly -1 on this. One foot in and one foot out
the door is not way to effect positive change.
> Another solution may be just to close down the JCP as a valiant
> experiment, and let MSFT and Sun battle it out with their closed
> products (or join forces). The rest of us would probably schlep over to
> OSGi, use Harmony as the basic runtime, and see what happens...
And is certainly a consideration. I don't necessarily agree with...
> However, it's far too early to consider either of those outcomes, which
> would be fairly unpleasant and disruptive.
And the current situation is not so, in what sense?
I think we have to give this a very short period of time to work itself
out, but if the JCP organization is not a self-maintaining, self-healing
standards body, but the puppet of Sun, we have no business there. We'll
see what the JCP thinks of the recent blogging and current behaviors
w.r.t. J2SE 6, which has become even more bizarre than J2SE 5 offers...
Bill
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> WHY NOT SUSPEND PARTICIPATION IN THE JCP -- THE ROOT OF THE ACTUAL
> PROBLEM!!!
That is a possible outcome. But we're not ready to give up yet.
Another solution may be just to close down the JCP as a valiant
experiment, and let MSFT and Sun battle it out with their closed
products (or join forces). The rest of us would probably schlep over
to OSGi, use Harmony as the basic runtime, and see what happens...
However, it's far too early to consider either of those outcomes,
which would be fairly unpleasant and disruptive.
geir
>
> Danese Cooper wrote:
>> Not that anybody asked me, but I think they WANT us to stop ASF
>> Java development, no? A publicized cease code would seem to send
>> the message that they've won.
>>
>> Danese
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Loughran wrote:
>>>>> But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
>>>> > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
>>>>> back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product
>>>>> release tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java
>>>>> code for the rest of august. Because there are other things out
>>>>> there, and the one that interests me has the name Erlang. Time
>>>>> to start the first erlang-related work at apache, I think
>>>>
>>>> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
>>>> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
>>>> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly
>>>> enforced.
>>>>
>>>> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid
>>>> next step response from our side. It might also make Sun begin
>>>> to realise that they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and
>>>> Java.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on
>>>> Java to have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> I dunno. This seems like cutting of our nose... Java is "ours"
>>> as much as it is "theirs". IMO, Sun is trying to re-position
>>> Java as theirs, something they are allowing us to help them with,
>>> rather than something that we've all come to collectively own
>>> over the last 7 years or so through our contributions. So I
>>> don't want to do anything that adds any support to that idea....
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Buni Meldware Communication Suite
> http://buni.org
> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including
> freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of installation/
> administration.
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
WHY NOT SUSPEND PARTICIPATION IN THE JCP -- THE ROOT OF THE ACTUAL
PROBLEM!!!
Danese Cooper wrote:
> Not that anybody asked me, but I think they WANT us to stop ASF Java
> development, no? A publicized cease code would seem to send the
> message that they've won.
>
> Danese
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Loughran wrote:
>>>> But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
>>> > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
>>>> back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product
>>>> release tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code
>>>> for the rest of august. Because there are other things out there,
>>>> and the one that interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start
>>>> the first erlang-related work at apache, I think
>>>
>>> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
>>> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
>>> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly
>>> enforced.
>>>
>>> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next
>>> step response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to realise
>>> that they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on
>>> Java to have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> I dunno. This seems like cutting of our nose... Java is "ours" as
>> much as it is "theirs". IMO, Sun is trying to re-position Java as
>> theirs, something they are allowing us to help them with, rather than
>> something that we've all come to collectively own over the last 7
>> years or so through our contributions. So I don't want to do
>> anything that adds any support to that idea....
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Rory Winston <rw...@eircom.net>.
lol! I've been spending some time on Ruby and Haskell recently, and had
the same thoughts ;-)
Rory
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Besides, after work with Ruby a bit, who would want to come *back* to Java? :)
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 8/12/07, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not that anybody asked me, but I think they WANT us to stop ASF Java
>> development, no? A publicized cease code would seem to send the
>> message that they've won.
>>
>> Danese
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Steve Loughran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
>>>>> There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
>>>>> back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product
>>>>> release tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code
>>>>> for the rest of august. Because there are other things out there,
>>>>> and the one that interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start
>>>>> the first erlang-related work at apache, I think
>>>>>
>>>> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
>>>> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
>>>> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly
>>>> enforced.
>>>>
>>>> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next
>>>> step response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to
>>>> realise that they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on
>>>> Java to have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>> I dunno. This seems like cutting of our nose... Java is "ours"
>>> as much as it is "theirs". IMO, Sun is trying to re-position Java
>>> as theirs, something they are allowing us to help them with, rather
>>> than something that we've all come to collectively own over the
>>> last 7 years or so through our contributions. So I don't want to
>>> do anything that adds any support to that idea....
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Besides, after work with Ruby a bit, who would want to come *back* to Java? :)
Thanks,
Aaron
On 8/12/07, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not that anybody asked me, but I think they WANT us to stop ASF Java
> development, no? A publicized cease code would seem to send the
> message that they've won.
>
> Danese
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Loughran wrote:
> >>> But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
> >> > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
> >>> back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product
> >>> release tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code
> >>> for the rest of august. Because there are other things out there,
> >>> and the one that interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start
> >>> the first erlang-related work at apache, I think
> >>
> >> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
> >> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
> >> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly
> >> enforced.
> >>
> >> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next
> >> step response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to
> >> realise that they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on
> >> Java to have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >
> > I dunno. This seems like cutting of our nose... Java is "ours"
> > as much as it is "theirs". IMO, Sun is trying to re-position Java
> > as theirs, something they are allowing us to help them with, rather
> > than something that we've all come to collectively own over the
> > last 7 years or so through our contributions. So I don't want to
> > do anything that adds any support to that idea....
> >
> > geir
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
Not that anybody asked me, but I think they WANT us to stop ASF Java
development, no? A publicized cease code would seem to send the
message that they've won.
Danese
On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
>> Steve Loughran wrote:
>>> But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
>> > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
>>> back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product
>>> release tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code
>>> for the rest of august. Because there are other things out there,
>>> and the one that interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start
>>> the first erlang-related work at apache, I think
>>
>> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
>> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
>> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly
>> enforced.
>>
>> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next
>> step response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to
>> realise that they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
>>
>> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on
>> Java to have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
> I dunno. This seems like cutting of our nose... Java is "ours"
> as much as it is "theirs". IMO, Sun is trying to re-position Java
> as theirs, something they are allowing us to help them with, rather
> than something that we've all come to collectively own over the
> last 7 years or so through our contributions. So I don't want to
> do anything that adds any support to that idea....
>
> geir
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Steve Loughran wrote:
>> But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
> > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
>> back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product
>> release tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code
>> for the rest of august. Because there are other things out there,
>> and the one that interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start
>> the first erlang-related work at apache, I think
>
> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly
> enforced.
>
> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next
> step response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to
> realise that they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
>
> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on
> Java to have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
>
> Any thoughts?
I dunno. This seems like cutting of our nose... Java is "ours" as
much as it is "theirs". IMO, Sun is trying to re-position Java as
theirs, something they are allowing us to help them with, rather than
something that we've all come to collectively own over the last 7
years or so through our contributions. So I don't want to do
anything that adds any support to that idea....
geir
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 8/13/07, Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Possible actions
> 1. arrange for some erlang session at apachecon
> 2. start some collaborative erlang projects @apache.
> 3. start an erlang@apache.org mailing list. Sam?
As a general rule, the ASF have found project centric organizations to
be superior to language centric organizations.
> Here's some ideas of things to build
> 1. mod_erlang
> 2. something to make comms between java and erlang really easy (assume
> JSON over Jabber) so that people with legacy java systems can integrate
> with erlang infrastructure. If we support ruby too, we can treat java as
> a back end you have to deal with. The goal would be to make Java adopt
> the REST world view, not erlang/ruby embrace WS-*.
>
> #2 seems kind of cool to me. I will do some investigation there.
Those are good examples of projects.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Steve Loughran wrote:
>> But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
> > There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
>> back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product
>> release tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code for
>> the rest of august. Because there are other things out there, and the
>> one that interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start the first
>> erlang-related work at apache, I think
>
> This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
> development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
> voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly enforced.
>
> It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next step
> response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to realise that
> they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
>
> Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on Java to
> have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
Scala is in-JVM only, so not as strategically bad. Erlang, erlang I
like. Not just technically, politically. Look at the history of Erlang
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1240000/1238850/supp/Erlang.pdf?key1=1238850&key2=5766986811&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618
http://patricklogan.blogspot.com/2007/08/bits-of-wisdon-hopl-iiis-history-of.html
A few years back ericsson stopped supporting it internally, forcing it
out into the wild. They set their child free. Admittedly, because they
thought Java was better, but they have seen the error of their ways
Possible actions
1. arrange for some erlang session at apachecon
2. start some collaborative erlang projects @apache.
3. start an erlang@apache.org mailing list. Sam?
Here's some ideas of things to build
1. mod_erlang
2. something to make comms between java and erlang really easy (assume
JSON over Jabber) so that people with legacy java systems can integrate
with erlang infrastructure. If we support ruby too, we can treat java as
a back end you have to deal with. The goal would be to make Java adopt
the REST world view, not erlang/ruby embrace WS-*.
#2 seems kind of cool to me. I will do some investigation there.
[PROPOSAL] Suspend ASF Java development for one week
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@joda.org>.
Steve Loughran wrote:
> But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes [snip]
> There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
> back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product release
> tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code for the rest of
> august. Because there are other things out there, and the one that
> interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start the first erlang-related
> work at apache, I think
This comment, got me thinking... what if the ASF suspended Java
development for one week (or even a month). It could be either a
voluntary personal decision by each committer, or more strongly enforced.
It would definitely get press attention, and would be a valid next step
response from our side. It might also make Sun begin to realise that
they lose if the ASF walks away from the JCP and Java.
Perhaps the time could be used for the developers not working on Java to
have a mini-hackathon in Scala or Erlang or Ruby...
Any thoughts?
Stephen
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 8/9/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> > Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
> >> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
> >> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
> >> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
> >> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
> >> compatibility kit terms.
> >
>
> I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
+1
> > Its always dangerous to interpret things as rewritten by
> > journalists. All that is definite is that some change has been made
> > to the "scholarship program" (?), to remove "obligations that
> > precluded shipping software under the GPL". All interpretations
> > beyond that are up to the journalists, though presumably they may
> > have got some impressions from Sun that this helps OSS Java,
> > because, well, its an important message to get across -and if you
> > can present any change as helping this, then of course you would.
>
> No - as I understand it, they are simply offering a different TCK
> license for OpenJDK and anything that is "substantially" based on
> OpenJDK.
for me, an adequate response to the open letter found have been (for
example) yes but GPL only. this is about independent implementations
in general, not just harmony. sun are still blocking them.
- robert
GPLv2 contributions and use in original work.Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
>
> Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
>
Genender suitably whacked me in the back of the head for being a
troll. Apologies then ... it was late.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
the latter AFAICT.
On 8/10/07, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
> I'm not clear on this...are the TCKs themselves being made available
> under GPL or just being made "available" to those who use GPL?
>
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > On 8/9/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
> >>>> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
> >>>> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
> >>>> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
> >>>> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
> >>>> compatibility kit terms.
> >>>>
> >> I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
> >>
> >
> > Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
> >
> > http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
>
>
> --
> Buni Meldware Communication Suite
> http://buni.org
> Multi-platform and extensible Email,
> Calendaring (including freebusy),
> Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
> of installation/administration.
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> As no one answered you: The TCK licensing terms allow you to develop
> something derived from the OpenJDK codebase and released under GPLv2
> (nothing else). You get the TCK without any support and if your project
> manages to pass the TCK, you are allowed to call it "J2SE 6" and use all
> the Java trademarks. The TCK puts additional restrictions on your code
> base (which IMHO is cutting it really close with the "no additional
> restrictions" term of the GPL v2), that say "your code *must* be
> substantially derived from OpenJDK".
>
> You are *not* allowed to redistribute the TCK or to change the TCK in
> any way. You don't get the source code of the TCK. You are not allowed
> to discuss TCK results with anyone, unless that other party has also
> access to the TCK under the same licensing terms (effectively blocking
> out any discussion / conversation between e.g. OpenJDK projects and
> other efforts (either commercial or (hypothetical) Apache Harmony).
>
>
What a great way to run an open source project! Apache should
definitely not suspend its membership and support for such "open"
standards...if by open we mean "not open".
> Best regards
> Henning
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:32 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> I'm not clear on this...are the TCKs themselves being made available
>> under GPL or just being made "available" to those who use GPL?
>>
>>
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/9/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
>>>>>> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
>>>>>> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
>>>>>> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
>>>>>> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
>>>>>> compatibility kit terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
>>>
>>> http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>>
>>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
No
On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Thanks for the correction. As I have not (yet?) signed the ASF NDA, I
> have never actually seen the JCK (or any TCK for that matter), so I
> can
> only repeat what I heard from others. I was wrong there.
>
> Still, you are not allowed to change the source code, are you?
>
> Best regards
> Henning
>
>
> On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 21:27 -0600, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>> Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>>> You don't get the source code of the TCK.
>>
>> Actually...you do...its part of the package ;-) We use the source,
>> especially in debugging our issues. In fact, if they didn't give
>> us the
>> source, the testing would have taken a lot longer...and Sun would
>> have
>> heard a lot more from me ;-)
>>
>> Jeff
>
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the correction. As I have not (yet?) signed the ASF NDA, I
have never actually seen the JCK (or any TCK for that matter), so I can
only repeat what I heard from others. I was wrong there.
Still, you are not allowed to change the source code, are you?
Best regards
Henning
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 21:27 -0600, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > You don't get the source code of the TCK.
>
> Actually...you do...its part of the package ;-) We use the source,
> especially in debugging our issues. In fact, if they didn't give us the
> source, the testing would have taken a lot longer...and Sun would have
> heard a lot more from me ;-)
>
> Jeff
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> You don't get the source code of the TCK.
Actually...you do...its part of the package ;-) We use the source,
especially in debugging our issues. In fact, if they didn't give us the
source, the testing would have taken a lot longer...and Sun would have
heard a lot more from me ;-)
Jeff
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de>.
As no one answered you: The TCK licensing terms allow you to develop
something derived from the OpenJDK codebase and released under GPLv2
(nothing else). You get the TCK without any support and if your project
manages to pass the TCK, you are allowed to call it "J2SE 6" and use all
the Java trademarks. The TCK puts additional restrictions on your code
base (which IMHO is cutting it really close with the "no additional
restrictions" term of the GPL v2), that say "your code *must* be
substantially derived from OpenJDK".
You are *not* allowed to redistribute the TCK or to change the TCK in
any way. You don't get the source code of the TCK. You are not allowed
to discuss TCK results with anyone, unless that other party has also
access to the TCK under the same licensing terms (effectively blocking
out any discussion / conversation between e.g. OpenJDK projects and
other efforts (either commercial or (hypothetical) Apache Harmony).
Best regards
Henning
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:32 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> I'm not clear on this...are the TCKs themselves being made available
> under GPL or just being made "available" to those who use GPL?
>
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > On 8/9/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
> >>>> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
> >>>> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
> >>>> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
> >>>> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
> >>>> compatibility kit terms.
> >>>>
> >> I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
> >>
> >
> > Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
> >
> > http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
>
>
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux, |gls
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc
|m k
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Okay...so when do we surrender? Geir? How do we surrender? Or
> wait...we can just indefinitely vote against sun specs and do nothing
> more as a means of surrendering. cool. Sun wins, apache looses.
And you would rather we react how, exactly, in our fit of pique
and consternation?
This is actually the *first* response to any issue we had raised, by Sun.
Of course, months gives them the hope that the open letter was forgotten,
and all frustrations are forgiven.
And that's silly, if not foolish. There will be some response to the
response, but asking the board, or even Geir, to overreact without
considering the ramifications is silly.
Yes, I understand that we will continue to vote against specs led by *any*
participant who is in violation of the JSPA. And for today, that's that.
For tomorrow? Patience.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 8/13/07, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
> Show me. You guys go on record and sound of here. BTW I didn't make
> the accusation -- geir did (ironically), I just agreed with it. So
> let's hear it...you guys sound of here on which ones of you are for this
> stay the course strategy and which ones of you are for more aggressive
> action. Roll call.
If Geir were to do something that the Board disagreed with, I'm fairly
sure you'd hear other Directors (including myself) complain about it
publicly.
So, the silence from some folks is your indication that the Board
largely agrees with the path that Geir is going down. In fact, there
was a conscious decision amongst the Directors to be less vocal about
this on jcp-open@ and let Geir speak for the ASF here. -- justin
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Roland Weber <ro...@apache.org>.
Alan Cabrera wrote:
> I think we should be making posters, t-shirts, bumper
> stickers, etc.
NopenJDK!
*scnr*
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net>.
Alan Cabrera wrote:
> I think we should be making posters, t-shirts, bumper
> stickers, etc.
NopenJDK!
*scnr*
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
>
> 1a. Keep voting no and start expanding a media campaign. All
> successful modern campaigns of change expertly used mass media to the
> chagrin of the "evil-doers". I think we should be making posters,
> t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. We should be initiating sessions at
> OSCON, etc.
>
You are aware that OSCON means this silly show continues for a year...
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Alan Cabrera <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> On 8/11/07, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Keep voting no
>>>> 2. ????
>>>> 3. We win
>>>>
>>>
>>> when we set out on this route, it was clear that this phase of the
>>> game would (most likely) be long. probably not as long as the
>>> alternative - hiring lawyers and battling out the meaning of the
>>> contract in court - but long. we need to stay the course.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That is a false dilemma. There is also "withdrawal" as an option.
>> :-) Thank you for putting "stay the course".
>
> Withdrawal is clearly an option. We're just not ready to give up
> yet. We've have a multi-year track record of success, and I expect
> that we'll have a successful outcome here.
1a. Keep voting no and start expanding a media campaign. All
successful modern campaigns of change expertly used mass media to the
chagrin of the "evil-doers". I think we should be making posters, t-
shirts, bumper stickers, etc. We should be initiating sessions at
OSCON, etc.
Personally, I think that given the timing of Rich Green's blog entry
means that we are obviously making them uncomfortable. I think that
we're doing something right. We just have to try to control the FUD.
That c|net article that Matt pointed out seemed kinda biased. It's
not clear to me that they contacted Geir for comment. This article
reads like it was written by Rich Sands not Stephen Shankland. We
should take them to task on that. Niclas Hedman's comment on Rich's
blog seems like the right idea.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Your assumption is wrong. The board stands unanimously behind Geir.
>
>
Show me. You guys go on record and sound of here. BTW I didn't make
the accusation -- geir did (ironically), I just agreed with it. So
let's hear it...you guys sound of here on which ones of you are for this
stay the course strategy and which ones of you are for more aggressive
action. Roll call.
Never been a big fan of secrets in open source.
> Best regards
> Henning
>
>
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 03:22 -0400, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 20:19 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >
> >>> And please don't be a quisling and traffic the "these are Geir's
> >>> decisions" meme. That's already been tried.
> >>>
> >> But they are Geir. Because most of board have been coming up in
> >> disagreement at least publicly with most of your "cave in and take it
> >> for several more years" strategy and yet at the same time...the actions
> >
> > Your assumption is wrong. The board stands unanimously behind Geir.
>
> That isn't even completely fair. Geir stands affirmatively behind the
"Geir represents the position of the board. It is not true that "most of
the board is in disagreement of the strategy", because it is the
strategy decided by the board".
It should be obvious that he is not running rogue here and the board
disagrees; something that Andrew tried to imply IMHO.
[...]
> proceed with Z", I absolutely trust Geir would convey that direction,
> and to a casual observer, you wouldn't notice a distinction between
> boards'/Geir's statements. Although we individually have voices and
> a dialog, Geir is speaking 'as the ASF'. That's required of anyone
> who serves as a representative to outside organizations.
Semantics. I jwant to make sure that Andrew's accusations that Geir "is
in disagreement with most of the board" do not stick in anyone's mind.
Best regards
Henning
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 20:19 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>>> And please don't be a quisling and traffic the "these are Geir's
>>> decisions" meme. That's already been tried.
>>>
>> But they are Geir. Because most of board have been coming up in
>> disagreement at least publicly with most of your "cave in and take it
>> for several more years" strategy and yet at the same time...the actions
>
> Your assumption is wrong. The board stands unanimously behind Geir.
That isn't even completely fair. Geir stands affirmatively behind the
decision of the board. As our 'representative', he conveys a consensus
position colored by his own experience and expectations. I've never
seen any claim by a board member that his representation was outside
of our consensus position.
This is to say, if the board said "Do X, then Y, but if X doesn't work
proceed with Z", I absolutely trust Geir would convey that direction,
and to a casual observer, you wouldn't notice a distinction between
boards'/Geir's statements. Although we individually have voices and
a dialog, Geir is speaking 'as the ASF'. That's required of anyone
who serves as a representative to outside organizations.
Bill
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 20:19 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > And please don't be a quisling and traffic the "these are Geir's
> > decisions" meme. That's already been tried.
> >
> But they are Geir. Because most of board have been coming up in
> disagreement at least publicly with most of your "cave in and take it
> for several more years" strategy and yet at the same time...the actions
Your assumption is wrong. The board stands unanimously behind Geir.
Best regards
Henning
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Representation, open process and open communication is the ONLY route to
open source and open standards. You have 1 of 3 and nothing has ever
happened on the other two (which are the more important).
>
> The board will be evaluating this on a regular basis. We have some
> near-term milestones to examine first.
>
Let's hear it. Not a big fan of secrets.
>
> And our communities that work in and around the JCP and it's specs
> have generally flourished. Now we've run into a bit of a roadblock.
> Do you think we should just throw in the towel because of a little
> challenge like this? This issue is worth standing up for.
>
By doing what exactly? When I lived in chapel hill, every weekend the
college kids would protest in front of the post office. The first week
(~Feb 1999) it was Animal rights, I have no idea what they were
protesting the rest of the year.
>> But they are Geir. Because most of board have been coming up in
>> disagreement at least publicly with most of your "cave in and take it
>> for several more years" strategy and yet at the same time...the
>> actions taken are what you favor.
>
> How did we "cave"? To what did we "cave"?
>
Freedom, openness... would you like a list? You signed NDAs for the
right to work on supposedly (I do not accept Apache JCP software as open
source) "Open Source" software! You helped build this brand of fake.
>> I'd like to see you loose on a few points before I rejoin you in the
>> national unity party (the reference was Geir's, I just extended it).
>> It isn't the first time I've been called a quisling by you...probably
>> won't be the last...at least we're both consistent in that area.
>
> No, I don't think that I've ever done that before, because while I've
> seen you hold a position that was contrary to the ASFs, those
> positions had merit.
>
And this position has even more merit. The ASF should have never sold
out to the fake open standards board, said it then, saying it now. I
might be repetitive but I'm consistent (but only if you pay really close
attention).
>
> I hereby proclaim that I, Geir Magnusson, through the powers vested in
> me by my movie-star looks and buff physique, hereby allow, due to my
> munificence and aforementioned good looks, the Apache Software
> Foundation to withraw from the JCP.
>
> LOL
>
> To be honest, I'd like to be leading the way if we decide to leave,
> and truth be told, I'm actually personally not far from advocating
> that course of action. But I'm only one voice, and at this point, I
> suspect that would be supporting Sun as well, because they don't seem
> to be too interested in an open java ecosystem.
>
"Give on to Caesar what is Caesar's"..... Private lists, secrecy,
double classes (NDA signers and non-NDA signers)...This started as an
offense to he "open" part of open source...and it is an even bigger one
now. Sun should be called out, get the "open" part of OpenJDK
shattered, tattered , dragged through the mud and destroyed. I'd have
rather NOT seen OpenJDK than another project that isn't really open
source passing itself off as it. Fake "open standards" (if by open you
mean restricted) and you guys are afraid to stop collaborating in this
little silly show rather than stand up for the "open source" that you
supposedly believe in?
This has always been to me like the Catholic church signing a deal with
Satan in order to reach more people to potentially convert them to be
good catholics and then complaining that he just doesn't seem to be that
interested in expanding his message beyond evil... Sheesh...ya think?
I just don't understand what is being lost...fake open source and fake
open standards? Corruption? This has always been a fools errand and is
even worse now. Progress was that they fake open sourced the JDK and
you helped them put out more fake standards. I see where they won...I
just DONT see where you won. Might have felt like progress at the
time...but I'm afraid you've been had. Now its time for you to step up
to the plate King Geir.
Representation, open process and open communication is the ONLY route to
open source and open standards. You have 1 of 3 and nothing has ever
happened on the other two (which are the more important BTW).
-Andy
> geir
>
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and it all depends on what you mean by win :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thank you for that as well.
>>>>
>>>>> apache's been playing this game for the best part of a decade now
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And has been infected by it.
>>>>> the apache aim is to create a JCP which works equitably for everyone:
>>>>> commercial, non-profit and academic corporations; independent
>>>>> individuals; open and closed source implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And it has failed. It is time to stop.
>>>>> taking the long view, the harmony dispute just demonstrates a flaw in
>>>>> the current process. apache and sun have different views of the
>>>>> rights
>>>>> and obligations that the process places upon participants. there
>>>>> is no
>>>>> effective dispute resolution process other than resorting to contract
>>>>> law. unfortunately, this flaw has a sufficiently serious impact on
>>>>> non-profits that we've needed to reconsider our position.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> yes
>>>>> in the long run, our issues are everyone's issues. other non-profits
>>>>> need to be able to participate safely. commercial corporations
>>>>> need to
>>>>> be able to resolve issues within the process. most participants in
>>>>> the
>>>>> JCP are clearly happy to allow open source implementations of their
>>>>> specifications. if the JSPA is not sufficient then something else is
>>>>> needed. if we can stay the course then in due time i hope they
>>>>> will be
>>>>> resolved to our satisfaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> CAn we have a timeline for that?
>>>>> taking the narrow view, apache has achieved many of it's goals with
>>>>> harmony. harmony is a platform that will run our java software
>>>>> notwithstanding the largess of commercial corporations. harmony is a
>>>>> vibrant community. java will be open source. competition from harmony
>>>>> and GNU classpath have encouraged sun to drive java development
>>>>> forward again.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, there is still no independent certified implementation of java
>>>>> (whether GNU Classpath or harmony). and yes, harmony is still not
>>>>> certified. so, it's too early to declare total victory but it's not
>>>>> too early to thank geir and everyone else who worked on harmony for
>>>>> their contribution. cheers :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And all distributions are arguably tainted by at least the kodak
>>>> patent.
>>>>> in the long run, once sun switches to GPL3 and can start including
>>>>> harmony code within it's product, i think that it will be clearer to
>>>>> the people at sun that a strong harmony is to their benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think Harmony is good enough for any code to replace any of
>>>> the OpenJDK code. Moreover, this lame supposition didn't happen
>>>> last time it was used...I doubt it will happen this time.
>>>>
>>>> To me it is not about harmony it is about closed fake open source.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Andy
>>>> Stop the vote surge! Timelines for withdrawal!
>>>>> - robert
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Buni Meldware Communication Suite
>>>> http://buni.org
>>>> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including
>>>> freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of
>>>> installation/administration.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --Buni Meldware Communication Suite
>> http://buni.org
>> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including
>> freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of
>> installation/administration.
>>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That is a false dilemma. There is also "withdrawal" as an option.
>>> :-) Thank you for putting "stay the course".
>>
>> Withdrawal is clearly an option. We're just not ready to give up
>> yet. We've have a multi-year track record of success, and I
>> expect that we'll have a successful outcome here.
>>
> At what point is this up. What is the timeline for withdrawal?
The board will be evaluating this on a regular basis. We have some
near-term milestones to examine first.
>>>
>>> I don't really support "the surge" being given indefinite time to
>>> work.
>>
>> Well, that would be a different subject, namely the Iraq war.
>> (And you probably thought these references were clever...)
>>
>> There's no "surge" here - there's a set sequence of steps that
>> we're taking that don't involve any wishful thinking or additional
>> resources.
> The reference was extended but it did not originate with me :-)
>>
>>
>> Ok. Objections noted. The strategy around voting was discussed
>> and agreed to by the Apache board at the last meeting. It will be
>> presented in more detail to the jcp-open list later this week.
>>
> The objections have been noted for 5 years.
And our communities that work in and around the JCP and it's specs
have generally flourished. Now we've run into a bit of a roadblock.
Do you think we should just throw in the towel because of a little
challenge like this? This issue is worth standing up for.
>> And please don't be a quisling and traffic the "these are Geir's
>> decisions" meme. That's already been tried.
>>
> But they are Geir. Because most of board have been coming up in
> disagreement at least publicly with most of your "cave in and take
> it for several more years" strategy and yet at the same time...the
> actions taken are what you favor.
How did we "cave"? To what did we "cave"?
> I'd like to see you loose on a few points before I rejoin you in
> the national unity party (the reference was Geir's, I just extended
> it). It isn't the first time I've been called a quisling by
> you...probably won't be the last...at least we're both consistent
> in that area.
No, I don't think that I've ever done that before, because while I've
seen you hold a position that was contrary to the ASFs, those
positions had merit.
>
> So Geir: At what point (days, weeks, months, decades) are you
> willing to allow apache to withdraw from the JCP?
I hereby proclaim that I, Geir Magnusson, through the powers vested
in me by my movie-star looks and buff physique, hereby allow, due to
my munificence and aforementioned good looks, the Apache Software
Foundation to withraw from the JCP.
LOL
To be honest, I'd like to be leading the way if we decide to leave,
and truth be told, I'm actually personally not far from advocating
that course of action. But I'm only one voice, and at this point, I
suspect that would be supporting Sun as well, because they don't seem
to be too interested in an open java ecosystem.
geir
>
> -Andy
>
>> geir
>>
>>>
>>>> and it all depends on what you mean by win :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank you for that as well.
>>>
>>>> apache's been playing this game for the best part of a decade now
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And has been infected by it.
>>>> the apache aim is to create a JCP which works equitably for
>>>> everyone:
>>>> commercial, non-profit and academic corporations; independent
>>>> individuals; open and closed source implementations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And it has failed. It is time to stop.
>>>> taking the long view, the harmony dispute just demonstrates a
>>>> flaw in
>>>> the current process. apache and sun have different views of the
>>>> rights
>>>> and obligations that the process places upon participants. there
>>>> is no
>>>> effective dispute resolution process other than resorting to
>>>> contract
>>>> law. unfortunately, this flaw has a sufficiently serious impact on
>>>> non-profits that we've needed to reconsider our position.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> yes
>>>> in the long run, our issues are everyone's issues. other non-
>>>> profits
>>>> need to be able to participate safely. commercial corporations
>>>> need to
>>>> be able to resolve issues within the process. most participants
>>>> in the
>>>> JCP are clearly happy to allow open source implementations of their
>>>> specifications. if the JSPA is not sufficient then something
>>>> else is
>>>> needed. if we can stay the course then in due time i hope they
>>>> will be
>>>> resolved to our satisfaction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> CAn we have a timeline for that?
>>>> taking the narrow view, apache has achieved many of it's goals with
>>>> harmony. harmony is a platform that will run our java software
>>>> notwithstanding the largess of commercial corporations. harmony
>>>> is a
>>>> vibrant community. java will be open source. competition from
>>>> harmony
>>>> and GNU classpath have encouraged sun to drive java development
>>>> forward again.
>>>>
>>>> yes, there is still no independent certified implementation of java
>>>> (whether GNU Classpath or harmony). and yes, harmony is still not
>>>> certified. so, it's too early to declare total victory but it's not
>>>> too early to thank geir and everyone else who worked on harmony for
>>>> their contribution. cheers :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And all distributions are arguably tainted by at least the kodak
>>> patent.
>>>> in the long run, once sun switches to GPL3 and can start including
>>>> harmony code within it's product, i think that it will be
>>>> clearer to
>>>> the people at sun that a strong harmony is to their benefit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't think Harmony is good enough for any code to replace any
>>> of the OpenJDK code. Moreover, this lame supposition didn't
>>> happen last time it was used...I doubt it will happen this time.
>>>
>>> To me it is not about harmony it is about closed fake open source.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Andy
>>> Stop the vote surge! Timelines for withdrawal!
>>>> - robert
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --Buni Meldware Communication Suite
>>> http://buni.org
>>> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including
>>> freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of installation/
>>> administration.
>>>
>
>
> --
> Buni Meldware Communication Suite
> http://buni.org
> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including
> freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of installation/
> administration.
>
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
>>
>> That is a false dilemma. There is also "withdrawal" as an option.
>> :-) Thank you for putting "stay the course".
>
> Withdrawal is clearly an option. We're just not ready to give up
> yet. We've have a multi-year track record of success, and I expect
> that we'll have a successful outcome here.
>
At what point is this up. What is the timeline for withdrawal?
>>
>> I don't really support "the surge" being given indefinite time to work.
>
> Well, that would be a different subject, namely the Iraq war. (And
> you probably thought these references were clever...)
>
> There's no "surge" here - there's a set sequence of steps that we're
> taking that don't involve any wishful thinking or additional resources.
The reference was extended but it did not originate with me :-)
>
>
> Ok. Objections noted. The strategy around voting was discussed and
> agreed to by the Apache board at the last meeting. It will be
> presented in more detail to the jcp-open list later this week.
>
The objections have been noted for 5 years.
> And please don't be a quisling and traffic the "these are Geir's
> decisions" meme. That's already been tried.
>
But they are Geir. Because most of board have been coming up in
disagreement at least publicly with most of your "cave in and take it
for several more years" strategy and yet at the same time...the actions
taken are what you favor. I'd like to see you loose on a few points
before I rejoin you in the national unity party (the reference was
Geir's, I just extended it). It isn't the first time I've been called a
quisling by you...probably won't be the last...at least we're both
consistent in that area.
So Geir: At what point (days, weeks, months, decades) are you willing to
allow apache to withdraw from the JCP?
-Andy
> geir
>
>>
>>> and it all depends on what you mean by win :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Thank you for that as well.
>>
>>> apache's been playing this game for the best part of a decade now
>>>
>>>
>> And has been infected by it.
>>> the apache aim is to create a JCP which works equitably for everyone:
>>> commercial, non-profit and academic corporations; independent
>>> individuals; open and closed source implementations.
>>>
>>>
>> And it has failed. It is time to stop.
>>> taking the long view, the harmony dispute just demonstrates a flaw in
>>> the current process. apache and sun have different views of the rights
>>> and obligations that the process places upon participants. there is no
>>> effective dispute resolution process other than resorting to contract
>>> law. unfortunately, this flaw has a sufficiently serious impact on
>>> non-profits that we've needed to reconsider our position.
>>>
>>>
>> yes
>>> in the long run, our issues are everyone's issues. other non-profits
>>> need to be able to participate safely. commercial corporations need to
>>> be able to resolve issues within the process. most participants in the
>>> JCP are clearly happy to allow open source implementations of their
>>> specifications. if the JSPA is not sufficient then something else is
>>> needed. if we can stay the course then in due time i hope they will be
>>> resolved to our satisfaction.
>>>
>>>
>> CAn we have a timeline for that?
>>> taking the narrow view, apache has achieved many of it's goals with
>>> harmony. harmony is a platform that will run our java software
>>> notwithstanding the largess of commercial corporations. harmony is a
>>> vibrant community. java will be open source. competition from harmony
>>> and GNU classpath have encouraged sun to drive java development
>>> forward again.
>>>
>>> yes, there is still no independent certified implementation of java
>>> (whether GNU Classpath or harmony). and yes, harmony is still not
>>> certified. so, it's too early to declare total victory but it's not
>>> too early to thank geir and everyone else who worked on harmony for
>>> their contribution. cheers :-)
>>>
>>>
>> And all distributions are arguably tainted by at least the kodak patent.
>>> in the long run, once sun switches to GPL3 and can start including
>>> harmony code within it's product, i think that it will be clearer to
>>> the people at sun that a strong harmony is to their benefit.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think Harmony is good enough for any code to replace any of
>> the OpenJDK code. Moreover, this lame supposition didn't happen last
>> time it was used...I doubt it will happen this time.
>>
>> To me it is not about harmony it is about closed fake open source.
>>
>>
>> -Andy
>> Stop the vote surge! Timelines for withdrawal!
>>> - robert
>>>
>>
>>
>> --Buni Meldware Communication Suite
>> http://buni.org
>> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including
>> freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of
>> installation/administration.
>>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> On 8/11/07, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> So:
>>>
>>> 1. Keep voting no
>>> 2. ????
>>> 3. We win
>>>
>>
>> when we set out on this route, it was clear that this phase of the
>> game would (most likely) be long. probably not as long as the
>> alternative - hiring lawyers and battling out the meaning of the
>> contract in court - but long. we need to stay the course.
>>
>>
>
> That is a false dilemma. There is also "withdrawal" as an option.
> :-) Thank you for putting "stay the course".
Withdrawal is clearly an option. We're just not ready to give up
yet. We've have a multi-year track record of success, and I expect
that we'll have a successful outcome here.
>
> I don't really support "the surge" being given indefinite time to
> work.
Well, that would be a different subject, namely the Iraq war. (And
you probably thought these references were clever...)
There's no "surge" here - there's a set sequence of steps that we're
taking that don't involve any wishful thinking or additional resources.
> I think there are a number of people on here who don't. In fact in
> the last vote that was taken it didn't seem that surgists had a
> majority. I'm aware of the "strategy" and I know I'm ready to call
> it a failure. We need a process for breaking this logjam. I don't
> think it should just be up to whatever geir and a few others
> think. So far "lack of consensus" on withdrawal has resulted in a
> false decision to support a strategy that many on here are sound
> off as invalid. I view this as manipulative. Lay out the strategy
> we're supposedly accepting as an alternative to withdrawal on this
> list and let's vote on that. If not let's pick an alternative and
> EFFECTIVE response. I personally don't think "the vote surge" will
> work and do not support it as a strategy.
Ok. Objections noted. The strategy around voting was discussed and
agreed to by the Apache board at the last meeting. It will be
presented in more detail to the jcp-open list later this week.
And please don't be a quisling and traffic the "these are Geir's
decisions" meme. That's already been tried.
geir
>
>> and it all depends on what you mean by win :-)
>>
>>
> Thank you for that as well.
>
>> apache's been playing this game for the best part of a decade now
>>
>>
> And has been infected by it.
>> the apache aim is to create a JCP which works equitably for everyone:
>> commercial, non-profit and academic corporations; independent
>> individuals; open and closed source implementations.
>>
>>
> And it has failed. It is time to stop.
>> taking the long view, the harmony dispute just demonstrates a flaw in
>> the current process. apache and sun have different views of the
>> rights
>> and obligations that the process places upon participants. there
>> is no
>> effective dispute resolution process other than resorting to contract
>> law. unfortunately, this flaw has a sufficiently serious impact on
>> non-profits that we've needed to reconsider our position.
>>
>>
> yes
>> in the long run, our issues are everyone's issues. other non-profits
>> need to be able to participate safely. commercial corporations
>> need to
>> be able to resolve issues within the process. most participants in
>> the
>> JCP are clearly happy to allow open source implementations of their
>> specifications. if the JSPA is not sufficient then something else is
>> needed. if we can stay the course then in due time i hope they
>> will be
>> resolved to our satisfaction.
>>
>>
> CAn we have a timeline for that?
>> taking the narrow view, apache has achieved many of it's goals with
>> harmony. harmony is a platform that will run our java software
>> notwithstanding the largess of commercial corporations. harmony is a
>> vibrant community. java will be open source. competition from harmony
>> and GNU classpath have encouraged sun to drive java development
>> forward again.
>>
>> yes, there is still no independent certified implementation of java
>> (whether GNU Classpath or harmony). and yes, harmony is still not
>> certified. so, it's too early to declare total victory but it's not
>> too early to thank geir and everyone else who worked on harmony for
>> their contribution. cheers :-)
>>
>>
> And all distributions are arguably tainted by at least the kodak
> patent.
>> in the long run, once sun switches to GPL3 and can start including
>> harmony code within it's product, i think that it will be clearer to
>> the people at sun that a strong harmony is to their benefit.
>>
>>
> I don't think Harmony is good enough for any code to replace any of
> the OpenJDK code. Moreover, this lame supposition didn't happen
> last time it was used...I doubt it will happen this time.
>
> To me it is not about harmony it is about closed fake open source.
>
>
> -Andy
> Stop the vote surge! Timelines for withdrawal!
>> - robert
>>
>
>
> --
> Buni Meldware Communication Suite
> http://buni.org
> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including
> freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of installation/
> administration.
>
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On 8/11/07, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> So:
>>
>> 1. Keep voting no
>> 2. ????
>> 3. We win
>>
>
> when we set out on this route, it was clear that this phase of the
> game would (most likely) be long. probably not as long as the
> alternative - hiring lawyers and battling out the meaning of the
> contract in court - but long. we need to stay the course.
>
>
That is a false dilemma. There is also "withdrawal" as an option.
:-) Thank you for putting "stay the course".
I don't really support "the surge" being given indefinite time to work.
I think there are a number of people on here who don't. In fact in the
last vote that was taken it didn't seem that surgists had a majority.
I'm aware of the "strategy" and I know I'm ready to call it a failure.
We need a process for breaking this logjam. I don't think it should
just be up to whatever geir and a few others think. So far "lack of
consensus" on withdrawal has resulted in a false decision to support a
strategy that many on here are sound off as invalid. I view this as
manipulative. Lay out the strategy we're supposedly accepting as an
alternative to withdrawal on this list and let's vote on that. If not
let's pick an alternative and EFFECTIVE response. I personally don't
think "the vote surge" will work and do not support it as a strategy.
> and it all depends on what you mean by win :-)
>
>
Thank you for that as well.
> apache's been playing this game for the best part of a decade now
>
>
And has been infected by it.
> the apache aim is to create a JCP which works equitably for everyone:
> commercial, non-profit and academic corporations; independent
> individuals; open and closed source implementations.
>
>
And it has failed. It is time to stop.
> taking the long view, the harmony dispute just demonstrates a flaw in
> the current process. apache and sun have different views of the rights
> and obligations that the process places upon participants. there is no
> effective dispute resolution process other than resorting to contract
> law. unfortunately, this flaw has a sufficiently serious impact on
> non-profits that we've needed to reconsider our position.
>
>
yes
> in the long run, our issues are everyone's issues. other non-profits
> need to be able to participate safely. commercial corporations need to
> be able to resolve issues within the process. most participants in the
> JCP are clearly happy to allow open source implementations of their
> specifications. if the JSPA is not sufficient then something else is
> needed. if we can stay the course then in due time i hope they will be
> resolved to our satisfaction.
>
>
CAn we have a timeline for that?
> taking the narrow view, apache has achieved many of it's goals with
> harmony. harmony is a platform that will run our java software
> notwithstanding the largess of commercial corporations. harmony is a
> vibrant community. java will be open source. competition from harmony
> and GNU classpath have encouraged sun to drive java development
> forward again.
>
> yes, there is still no independent certified implementation of java
> (whether GNU Classpath or harmony). and yes, harmony is still not
> certified. so, it's too early to declare total victory but it's not
> too early to thank geir and everyone else who worked on harmony for
> their contribution. cheers :-)
>
>
And all distributions are arguably tainted by at least the kodak patent.
> in the long run, once sun switches to GPL3 and can start including
> harmony code within it's product, i think that it will be clearer to
> the people at sun that a strong harmony is to their benefit.
>
>
I don't think Harmony is good enough for any code to replace any of the
OpenJDK code. Moreover, this lame supposition didn't happen last time
it was used...I doubt it will happen this time.
To me it is not about harmony it is about closed fake open source.
-Andy
Stop the vote surge! Timelines for withdrawal!
> - robert
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 8/11/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> in the long run, once sun switches to GPL3 and can start including
> harmony code within it's product, i think that it will be clearer to
> the people at sun that a strong harmony is to their benefit.
While the FSF views the Apache License, Version 2.0 as incompatible
with GPLv2, Sun clearly doesn't share this view as substantial Apache
Licensed code is already present in OpenJDK:
https://openjdk.dev.java.net/source/browse/openjdk/jdk/trunk/j2se/src/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/
- Sam Ruby
Thanks, I'll pass
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@...> writes:
> It's interesting to see the slow and steady erosion of the core value
> of FSF-style "freedom" by commercial entities leveraging the control
> granted to the copyright holder by the GPL while at the same time
> granting themselves exceptions were needed for commercial or
> political expediency. At least those that use the AL are honest
> about what they are doing. The amazing part is that the FSF is helping.
That sort of invitation to an off-topic debate about the FSF is the reason why I
usually don't post here: I don't want to provide a platform to stray the course
of the discussion away from the usually insightful reflection on strategies
employed and to be employed by the ASF regarding the JCP.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 11, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@...> writes:
>
>> yes, there is still no independent certified implementation of java
>> (whether GNU Classpath or harmony). and yes, harmony is still not
>> certified. so, it's too early to declare total victory but it's not
>> too early to thank geir and everyone else who worked on harmony for
>> their contribution. cheers
>
> +1
>
>> in the long run, once sun switches to GPL3 and can start including
>> harmony code within it's product, i think that it will be clearer to
>> the people at sun that a strong harmony is to their benefit.
>
> +1
>
> Going off-topic, OpenJDK uses a special exception to the GPL that adds
> permissions on top of the GPLv2 to allow for inclusion of non-GPLv2
> licensed
> code in OpenJDK. See http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/
> faq.jsp#g12 for
> details.
Which means it's really only the GPL in name, right?
It's interesting to see the slow and steady erosion of the core value
of FSF-style "freedom" by commercial entities leveraging the control
granted to the copyright holder by the GPL while at the same time
granting themselves exceptions were needed for commercial or
political expediency. At least those that use the AL are honest
about what they are doing. The amazing part is that the FSF is helping.
geir
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@...> writes:
> yes, there is still no independent certified implementation of java
> (whether GNU Classpath or harmony). and yes, harmony is still not
> certified. so, it's too early to declare total victory but it's not
> too early to thank geir and everyone else who worked on harmony for
> their contribution. cheers
+1
> in the long run, once sun switches to GPL3 and can start including
> harmony code within it's product, i think that it will be clearer to
> the people at sun that a strong harmony is to their benefit.
+1
Going off-topic, OpenJDK uses a special exception to the GPL that adds
permissions on top of the GPLv2 to allow for inclusion of non-GPLv2 licensed
code in OpenJDK. See http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g12 for
details.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 8/11/07, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
<snip>
> >> Or wait...we can just indefinitely vote against sun specs and do
> >> nothing more as a means of surrendering. cool. Sun wins, apache
> >> looses.
> >
> > No - the way Sun is playing this, we all lose. We ned to fix this.
> > Java is too important.
> >
> > Essentially, I think sun is simply trying to change the subject.
> > Their violation of the JSPA doesn't go away - and we're not going away.
> So:
>
> 1. Keep voting no
> 2. ????
> 3. We win
when we set out on this route, it was clear that this phase of the
game would (most likely) be long. probably not as long as the
alternative - hiring lawyers and battling out the meaning of the
contract in court - but long. we need to stay the course.
and it all depends on what you mean by win :-)
apache's been playing this game for the best part of a decade now
the apache aim is to create a JCP which works equitably for everyone:
commercial, non-profit and academic corporations; independent
individuals; open and closed source implementations.
taking the long view, the harmony dispute just demonstrates a flaw in
the current process. apache and sun have different views of the rights
and obligations that the process places upon participants. there is no
effective dispute resolution process other than resorting to contract
law. unfortunately, this flaw has a sufficiently serious impact on
non-profits that we've needed to reconsider our position.
in the long run, our issues are everyone's issues. other non-profits
need to be able to participate safely. commercial corporations need to
be able to resolve issues within the process. most participants in the
JCP are clearly happy to allow open source implementations of their
specifications. if the JSPA is not sufficient then something else is
needed. if we can stay the course then in due time i hope they will be
resolved to our satisfaction.
taking the narrow view, apache has achieved many of it's goals with
harmony. harmony is a platform that will run our java software
notwithstanding the largess of commercial corporations. harmony is a
vibrant community. java will be open source. competition from harmony
and GNU classpath have encouraged sun to drive java development
forward again.
yes, there is still no independent certified implementation of java
(whether GNU Classpath or harmony). and yes, harmony is still not
certified. so, it's too early to declare total victory but it's not
too early to thank geir and everyone else who worked on harmony for
their contribution. cheers :-)
in the long run, once sun switches to GPL3 and can start including
harmony code within it's product, i think that it will be clearer to
the people at sun that a strong harmony is to their benefit.
- robert
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> Okay...so when do we surrender?
>
> Why would we surrender?
>
>> Geir? How do we surrender?
>
> We don't surrender. There's no reason to surrender. We're doing just
> fine. I think this is a big mistake on Sun's part. It's a
> discriminatory license (also forbidden by the JSPA) and takes away
> Sun's ability to claim that we're offered the same terms as any other
> implementor.
>
> It also is a pretty shameless attempt to try to exploit/create a rift
> between "free software" and "open source".
>
>> Or wait...we can just indefinitely vote against sun specs and do
>> nothing more as a means of surrendering. cool. Sun wins, apache
>> looses.
>
> No - the way Sun is playing this, we all lose. We ned to fix this.
> Java is too important.
>
> Essentially, I think sun is simply trying to change the subject.
> Their violation of the JSPA doesn't go away - and we're not going away.
So:
1. Keep voting no
2. ????
3. We win
>
> geir
>
>>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not clear on this...are the TCKs themselves being made available
>>>> under GPL or just being made "available" to those who use GPL?
>>>>
>>>
>>> To those who's implementation is derived from Sun's implementation and,
>>> apparently, "copy-back" as opposed to "copy-left".
>>>
>>> Any other implementation, GPL, AL or otherwise, is not granted this TCK
>>> license.
>>>
>>> E.g. the "non-discriminatory terms" requirement are apparently an
>>> inconvenient
>>> clause of the JSPA, to Sun's J2SE crew.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --Buni Meldware Communication Suite
>> http://buni.org
>> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including
>> freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of
>> installation/administration.
>>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@...> writes:
>>>
>>>> But you're confusing things here - your theory about NDAs giving
>>>> advantage to the signatories is reasonable, but having a
>>>> proprietary
>>>> RI or TCK doesn't give anyone an advantage because of the license.
>>>
>>> I think keeping the RI or the TCK proprietary gives whoever gets to
>>> be the spec
>>> lead a clear advantage over others, as they need access to them to
>>> verify their
>>> compatibility with the specification.
>>
>> Well, the spec leads product needs to as well - if the TCK license
>> was lightweight, then there wouldn't be a problem.
>>
>> I actually am sympathetic to the idea that spec leads need to be able
>> to recover costs of development of the TCK. (Of course, this can be
>> abused...) Certainly, it would be preferred if the TCKs were open
>> source, but I think that this isn't the right time to mandate this.
>
> recovery of costs is a complex issue
>
> there are major advantages in developing a open source functional test
> suite whilst developing the specification. it should also be cheaper
> to developer a good TCK given a good set of open source functional
> test. the TCK would also be easier to administer since most
> implementations would already be reasonably compliant.
>
> ATM the way the costs break down means that the open source community
> are being subsidised when the TCK is closed.
Of course. When we get things for free like that, it clearly has to
be :)
>
> i've wondered before whether it might be possible to separate the
> marketing aspects of a JSR from the other IP. IMHO it would not be not
> unreasonable for specifications leads to recover their costs by
> charging for marketing rights. of course, the players would need to
> understand and agree to the proposed costs before the specification
> process starts.
We've been around this tree a few years ago, and it turns out to be a
bad idea - because you have JSRs that have arguably huge marketing
costs like Java EE and Java SE (can you imagine if we had to help
foot the bill for Sun's Java marketing programs, like JavaOne???) and
JSRs that have zero marketing costs (think of the weird and niche ME
JSRs...)
geir
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 8/27/07, Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org> wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@...> writes:
>
> >
> > how much commercial branding opportunity is there around the vast
> > majority of specs? (hint : 0)
>
> In that case, those specs should be developed in a collaborative fashion, open
> source RI, TCK, CC-licensed spec, etc.
+1
if the specification brand is worthless then it seems unlikely that
the commercial rights to create an implementation of that spec will be
worth very much. in this case, it makes commercial sense for the
specification leader to reduce their costs by acting as a gate keeper
for contributions from the rest of the community.
> Why does the EC let specs without commercial branding opportunity have
> proprietary terms for TCKs, RIs and specifications? Why let something
> commercially irrelevant operate under NDAs?
dunno :-)
- robert
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Or rather than saying "Our product is (in any way associated with) EJB"
-- you could just say "Our Product Sucks!" and achieve the same branding
effect. (It is no comment on EJB3 other than "should have listened to
Andy and NOT called it EJB") ;-)
-Andy
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> how much commercial branding opportunity is there around the vast
> majority of specs? (hint : 0)
>
> On Aug 27, 2007, at 6:07 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
>> Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@...> writes:
>>
>>> i've wondered before whether it might be possible to separate the
>>> marketing aspects of a JSR from the other IP. IMHO it would not be not
>>> unreasonable for specifications leads to recover their costs by
>>> charging for marketing rights. of course, the players would need to
>>> understand and agree to the proposed costs before the specification
>>> process starts.
>>
>> I believe that the separation of branding from compatibility issues
>> would make sense.
>>
>> * commercial players want access to branding, they can afford to pay
>> for/invest in the development costs, etc. and need to contractually
>> assure the spec lead that they will comply with currently untestable
>> aspects of specifications.
>>
>> * non-profits don't need access to the branding, as they aren't
>> commercially active, so they don't need to deal with the restrictive
>> legal arrangements around the branding.
>>
>> cheers,
>> dalibor topic
>>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@...> writes:
>
> how much commercial branding opportunity is there around the vast
> majority of specs? (hint : 0)
In that case, those specs should be developed in a collaborative fashion, open
source RI, TCK, CC-licensed spec, etc.
Why does the EC let specs without commercial branding opportunity have
proprietary terms for TCKs, RIs and specifications? Why let something
commercially irrelevant operate under NDAs?
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
how much commercial branding opportunity is there around the vast
majority of specs? (hint : 0)
On Aug 27, 2007, at 6:07 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@...> writes:
>
>> i've wondered before whether it might be possible to separate the
>> marketing aspects of a JSR from the other IP. IMHO it would not be
>> not
>> unreasonable for specifications leads to recover their costs by
>> charging for marketing rights. of course, the players would need to
>> understand and agree to the proposed costs before the specification
>> process starts.
>
> I believe that the separation of branding from compatibility issues
> would make sense.
>
> * commercial players want access to branding, they can afford to pay
> for/invest in the development costs, etc. and need to contractually
> assure the spec lead that they will comply with currently untestable
> aspects of specifications.
>
> * non-profits don't need access to the branding, as they aren't
> commercially active, so they don't need to deal with the restrictive
> legal arrangements around the branding.
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@...> writes:
> i've wondered before whether it might be possible to separate the
> marketing aspects of a JSR from the other IP. IMHO it would not be not
> unreasonable for specifications leads to recover their costs by
> charging for marketing rights. of course, the players would need to
> understand and agree to the proposed costs before the specification
> process starts.
I believe that the separation of branding from compatibility issues
would make sense.
* commercial players want access to branding, they can afford to pay
for/invest in the development costs, etc. and need to contractually
assure the spec lead that they will comply with currently untestable
aspects of specifications.
* non-profits don't need access to the branding, as they aren't
commercially active, so they don't need to deal with the restrictive
legal arrangements around the branding.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 8/13/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@...> writes:
> >
> >> But you're confusing things here - your theory about NDAs giving
> >> advantage to the signatories is reasonable, but having a proprietary
> >> RI or TCK doesn't give anyone an advantage because of the license.
> >
> > I think keeping the RI or the TCK proprietary gives whoever gets to
> > be the spec
> > lead a clear advantage over others, as they need access to them to
> > verify their
> > compatibility with the specification.
>
> Well, the spec leads product needs to as well - if the TCK license
> was lightweight, then there wouldn't be a problem.
>
> I actually am sympathetic to the idea that spec leads need to be able
> to recover costs of development of the TCK. (Of course, this can be
> abused...) Certainly, it would be preferred if the TCKs were open
> source, but I think that this isn't the right time to mandate this.
recovery of costs is a complex issue
there are major advantages in developing a open source functional test
suite whilst developing the specification. it should also be cheaper
to developer a good TCK given a good set of open source functional
test. the TCK would also be easier to administer since most
implementations would already be reasonably compliant.
ATM the way the costs break down means that the open source community
are being subsidised when the TCK is closed.
i've wondered before whether it might be possible to separate the
marketing aspects of a JSR from the other IP. IMHO it would not be not
unreasonable for specifications leads to recover their costs by
charging for marketing rights. of course, the players would need to
understand and agree to the proposed costs before the specification
process starts.
- robert
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@...> writes:
> How does that give structural advantage for free software? Is this
> just wishful thinking?
No. :)
Free software RIs means we can collaborate around them. Free software TCKs means
our users can use them without hassle to verify our (and our proprietary
competition's) results at deployment time, and pick the better suited solution.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@...> writes:
>
>> But you're confusing things here - your theory about NDAs giving
>> advantage to the signatories is reasonable, but having a proprietary
>> RI or TCK doesn't give anyone an advantage because of the license.
>
> I think keeping the RI or the TCK proprietary gives whoever gets to
> be the spec
> lead a clear advantage over others, as they need access to them to
> verify their
> compatibility with the specification.
Well, the spec leads product needs to as well - if the TCK license
was lightweight, then there wouldn't be a problem.
I actually am sympathetic to the idea that spec leads need to be able
to recover costs of development of the TCK. (Of course, this can be
abused...) Certainly, it would be preferred if the TCKs were open
source, but I think that this isn't the right time to mandate this.
>
> If both RI and TCK have to be open source, I don't need to trust
> the spec lead
> to grant me a license I'd consider reasonable and non-
> discriminatory, I know
> I'll get one.
You don't really need the RI to implement - it's just proof that it
can be done.
>
>> Again, I don't understand your argument here. I think that EG
>> activities are trending towards the totally open. One counter-
>> example is Java SE 7, which seems to be happening outside of the JCP,
>> entirely inside Sun.
>
> I agree there is a very nice positive trend, in particular in
> respect to
> providing transparency around new JSRs. Unfortunately that trend
> does not seem
> yet to extend to TCKs, as far as I have seen it.
>
> Basically, it seems that some of the proprietary software vendors
> on the EC are
> moving away from business models based on keeping both the RI and
> the TCK
> proprietary to one where the RI is open source, and the TCK is
> proprietary.
I'm not sure if I would yet try to predict a trend there.
>
> That's still great progress, but it's still a discriminatory
> system, where you
> need to sign NDAs to work with the proprietary TCKs.
>
>>> Unfortunately, turning around Sun only changes one vote on the EC.
>>> That's not
>>> sufficient in order to fix the JCP.
>>
>> Well, right now, they are the only member of the EC that is trying to
>> rig the game for themselves by trying to dictate control of *any*
>> implementation of the JAva SE runtime, so I think if you fixed that,
>> you'd have a decent environment to work in.
>
> I understand that it looks that way from the inside, after all the
> hard,
> thankless work the ASF has put into the JCP - I'm sure you
> understand that it
> still doesn't look that inviting from the outside, as long as the
> NDA barrier to
> participation is there.
Agreed - we haven't beat that one yet.
>
>>> The soft one is to create advantages for free software
>>> implementations of JSRs
>>> over proprietary ones, so that the value of proprietary JSR
>>> implementations
>>> decreases over time, and therefore the companies behind them lose
>>> the incentive
>>> to rig the system in their favor. No money, no problem.
>>
>> That wouldn't be an open standard, and actually contrary to the
>> notion of freedom, isn't it? Let others distribute their IP as they
>> choose....
>
> I don't think that those advantages need to be mandated by the JCP.
>
> I think the JCP should mandate open source RIs, TCKs, and CC
> licensed specs for
> every JSR. But I don't think the JCP should limit the licensing
> choices to just
> open source ones for implementations of such JSRs. That'd be
> sufficient for the
> soft strategy to work, but it's not necessary, and besides, it
> would be cheating.
How does that give structural advantage for free software? Is this
just wishful thinking?
>
> There are better ways of ensuring that free software
> implementations of JSRs win
> over their proprietary counterparts, for example by providing
> better support for
> them. The soft strategy has nothing to do with the JCP, and
> everything with the
> free market.
Ok... but that can happen w/ closed TCKs and NDAs. (See "JBoss" as
an example of how an open-source-licensed distribution from a
commercial company did very, very well against proprietary
counterparts...)
geir
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@...> writes:
> But you're confusing things here - your theory about NDAs giving
> advantage to the signatories is reasonable, but having a proprietary
> RI or TCK doesn't give anyone an advantage because of the license.
I think keeping the RI or the TCK proprietary gives whoever gets to be the spec
lead a clear advantage over others, as they need access to them to verify their
compatibility with the specification.
If both RI and TCK have to be open source, I don't need to trust the spec lead
to grant me a license I'd consider reasonable and non-discriminatory, I know
I'll get one.
> Again, I don't understand your argument here. I think that EG
> activities are trending towards the totally open. One counter-
> example is Java SE 7, which seems to be happening outside of the JCP,
> entirely inside Sun.
I agree there is a very nice positive trend, in particular in respect to
providing transparency around new JSRs. Unfortunately that trend does not seem
yet to extend to TCKs, as far as I have seen it.
Basically, it seems that some of the proprietary software vendors on the EC are
moving away from business models based on keeping both the RI and the TCK
proprietary to one where the RI is open source, and the TCK is proprietary.
That's still great progress, but it's still a discriminatory system, where you
need to sign NDAs to work with the proprietary TCKs.
> > Unfortunately, turning around Sun only changes one vote on the EC.
> > That's not
> > sufficient in order to fix the JCP.
>
> Well, right now, they are the only member of the EC that is trying to
> rig the game for themselves by trying to dictate control of *any*
> implementation of the JAva SE runtime, so I think if you fixed that,
> you'd have a decent environment to work in.
I understand that it looks that way from the inside, after all the hard,
thankless work the ASF has put into the JCP - I'm sure you understand that it
still doesn't look that inviting from the outside, as long as the NDA barrier to
participation is there.
> > The soft one is to create advantages for free software
> > implementations of JSRs
> > over proprietary ones, so that the value of proprietary JSR
> > implementations
> > decreases over time, and therefore the companies behind them lose
> > the incentive
> > to rig the system in their favor. No money, no problem.
>
> That wouldn't be an open standard, and actually contrary to the
> notion of freedom, isn't it? Let others distribute their IP as they
> choose....
I don't think that those advantages need to be mandated by the JCP.
I think the JCP should mandate open source RIs, TCKs, and CC licensed specs for
every JSR. But I don't think the JCP should limit the licensing choices to just
open source ones for implementations of such JSRs. That'd be sufficient for the
soft strategy to work, but it's not necessary, and besides, it would be cheating.
There are better ways of ensuring that free software implementations of JSRs win
over their proprietary counterparts, for example by providing better support for
them. The soft strategy has nothing to do with the JCP, and everything with the
free market.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:56 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Chris Gray <ch...@...> writes:
>
>>
>> On Sunday 12 August 2007 05:30, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> No - we have no standing in any "rift" related to the GPL TCK, since
>>> we don't distribute software under the GPL. Dalibor may have a
>>> problem, if he tries to get a license to certify Kaffe + GNU
>>> Classpath, but I can't predict what will happen there.
>>
>> IIRC Dalibor has been trying for years to get a TCK license for
>> Kaffe under
>> the "scholarship" programme, without success - where success is
>> defined as
>> meaning "under conditions which make sense for the open source
>> project in
>> question". Rich's blog seems confirm what some of us had long
>> suspected -
>> that the whole scholarship thing was a sham, and Sun never
>> intended to give
>> TCK access to an independent free implementation.
>>
>
> In a project like Kaffe, that doesn't have a corporate sponsor, it
> makes sense
> to reuse as much code as possible from other projects.
Same with Harmony. Less is more.
>
> Almost all TCK licenses I've seen or heard of, including the
> current OpenJDK TCK
> license, have NDA-like restrictions on communication. Such
> provisions make it
> very hard to deal with potentially tons of issues raised by the TCK
> effectively
> in a federated project, like Kaffe, where I have to talk to GNU
> Classpath and
> other independent projects about fixing them. For projects like Kaffe,
> certification can not possibly work under NDAs, unless the expected
> amount of
> issues raised by the TCK is minimal.
>
> So yeah, the JCP has always been discriminatory. The NDA
> requirements draw a
> sharp line between those playing within the system and those
> outside it.
>
> I understand the business advantage for those playing within the
> NDA system:
> privileged access to the secret sauces during the making of JSRs
> lets them
> exploit that informational advantage financially by being first to
> market, etc.
> That sort of discrimination is system-endemic, i.e. the JCP works
> that way
> because the last round of EC members deciding on it designed it
> that way.
I'm not so sure. The primary intent is to let companies "open the
kimono" when it comes to their technologies and products to a small
group (the EC) such that if their ideas or technology is rejected,
they can "take it back".
I think that there are many cases where EGs work openly and "first
mover" advantage is quite weak. EJB3 was one such example.
>
> That, unfortunately, is not a problem one can really fix from
> outside the JCP.
> It's not a problem anyone except the EC could really fix. And I
> don't think it
> will, as there is no current EC member that is going to fight
> against NDAs, or
> fight against tying in proprietary software into JSRs, be it RIs,
> or TCKs.
But you're confusing things here - your theory about NDAs giving
advantage to the signatories is reasonable, but having a proprietary
RI or TCK doesn't give anyone an advantage because of the license.
>
> It's clearly not in the interest of all the proprietary software
> vendors on the
> EC, and the independents on it all probably have their own good
> reasons why they
> didn't pick up such a fight so far (for example because they'd
> likely lose it
> given the current distribution of seats between independents and
> proprietary
> software vendors).
Again, I don't understand your argument here. I think that EG
activities are trending towards the totally open. One counter-
example is Java SE 7, which seems to be happening outside of the JCP,
entirely inside Sun.
>
>> Best thing is for all concerned - ASF, FSF, the various Classpath-
>> based
>> projects - to keep hammering at Sun to live up to their promises
>> and actually
>> make the Java language as free as most of the alternatives are.
>>
>
> JCP's fundamental problem is that it is heavily rigged in favor of
> proprietary
> software vendors, and those within the system, at the expense of
> those outside
> the system, who end up having to deal with the results of business
> models based
> on keeping vital parts of the secret sauce proprietary. All the
> other problems
> follow from that.
Maybe. I think the JCPs fundamental problem is that it's a set of
contracts with one single commercial organization, Sun, as party to
each of those contracts. The JCP *used* to be rigged in favor of
proprietary software vendors, since open source wasn't possible (the
ASF fixed that), and if we don't get Sun to do the right thing wrt
the Java SE TCK, it will *still* be rigged. But I have hope we'll
fix that.
>
> Unfortunately, turning around Sun only changes one vote on the EC.
> That's not
> sufficient in order to fix the JCP.
Well, right now, they are the only member of the EC that is trying to
rig the game for themselves by trying to dictate control of *any*
implementation of the JAva SE runtime, so I think if you fixed that,
you'd have a decent environment to work in.
>
> There are two long term strategies I'd use to fix that problem: a
> soft one and a
> hard one.
>
> The soft one is to create advantages for free software
> implementations of JSRs
> over proprietary ones, so that the value of proprietary JSR
> implementations
> decreases over time, and therefore the companies behind them lose
> the incentive
> to rig the system in their favor. No money, no problem.
That wouldn't be an open standard, and actually contrary to the
notion of freedom, isn't it? Let others distribute their IP as they
choose....
>
> The hard one is to use elections to gradually replace those members
> of the EC
> who don't vote against JSRs with NDAs, or proprietary TCKs or
> proprietary RIs by
> those that would do that, until a sufficient majority on the JCP EC
> exists to
> ensure that no such JSR can pass through ever again. Then, codify
> that as a
> change to the JCP and make it permanent, to make sure that we don't
> have to keep
> that majority all the time. Problem fixed for good.
I think that could be useful, but first lets see what the current EC
does to solve the "rogue member" problem that we have now.
>
> I don't know if the ASF is the right place for pushing through
> either strategy.
> I think there is some value in a two pronged approach, where the
> ASF gets to be
> all 'pragmatic', and others get to be all 'radical'.
Color me pragmatic.
geir
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> Then there is the redhat model: free software through subscription. I
> dont know how that fits in to Sun's JDK plans...
>
or...secretly sun has actually built one of the better professional
services divisions from what I've seen...as a competitor at the time.
-Andy
> -steve
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> Almost all TCK licenses I've seen or heard of, including the current OpenJDK TCK
> license, have NDA-like restrictions on communication. Such provisions make it
> very hard to deal with potentially tons of issues raised by the TCK effectively
> in a federated project, like Kaffe, where I have to talk to GNU Classpath and
> other independent projects about fixing them. For projects like Kaffe,
> certification can not possibly work under NDAs, unless the expected amount of
> issues raised by the TCK is minimal.
>
> So yeah, the JCP has always been discriminatory. The NDA requirements draw a
> sharp line between those playing within the system and those outside it.
>
> I understand the business advantage for those playing within the NDA system:
> privileged access to the secret sauces during the making of JSRs lets them
> exploit that informational advantage financially by being first to market, etc.
> That sort of discrimination is system-endemic, i.e. the JCP works that way
> because the last round of EC members deciding on it designed it that way.
>
> That, unfortunately, is not a problem one can really fix from outside the JCP.
> It's not a problem anyone except the EC could really fix. And I don't think it
> will, as there is no current EC member that is going to fight against NDAs, or
> fight against tying in proprietary software into JSRs, be it RIs, or TCKs.
I work in grid-related, OASIS affiliated standards bodies. We dont do
things in secret; every meeting is public, all our test kit is in
sourceforge and builds under gump. Why? Because anything else is
inefficient. If you want to keep things a secret, dont try and
standardise them.
having secrets doesnt help productivity, it only hides design decisions,
stops developers talking about test cases, and generally being productive.
> JCP's fundamental problem is that it is heavily rigged in favor of proprietary
> software vendors, and those within the system, at the expense of those outside
> the system, who end up having to deal with the results of business models based
> on keeping vital parts of the secret sauce proprietary. All the other problems
> follow from that.
Well, I guess that was the business model of Sun and others when it was
created, the Microsoft model. Now sun are trying to transition to a new
business model, they MySQL one, that only works if you are the only
organisation that can dual-license a piece of software that everyone
has. This TCK debacle represents part of the problem Sun has in
transiting to the new world order. The other is convincing people to use
Solaris over linux, to actually contribute code back to Sun-JDK by
assigning copyright, etc, etc.
Then there is the redhat model: free software through subscription. I
dont know how that fits in to Sun's JDK plans...
-steve
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Sam Ruby <ru...@...> writes:
> Geir may have not expressed what he was thinking in the most
> politically correct fashion, but I sense that you, me, and Geir
> actually agree on more than one might expect.
We do. Just put open source where I say free software. I use them
interchangeably, depending on the audience.
> At the moment, we seem to be living in a topsy-turvy world. One in
> which those that you would expect to be 'radical' are either being
> pragmatic or sitting on the sidelines. And one where those who are
> earnestly trying to be 'pragmatic' are being portrayed[3] as being
> radical, and therefore dangerous.
We've all turned the Java world on its head in the past couple of years, and now
IBM, Sun, etc. are all dancing around trying to find their place in it. When
elephants dance, mice live in interesting times.
I assume that the roles we play will remain volatile, while those companies try
to figure out what their new business models are. But that is also off-topic for
this list, and I don't want to spend everyone's time on debates over comparative
pragmatism.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 8/12/07, Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org> wrote:
>
> There are two long term strategies I'd use to fix that problem: a soft one and a
> hard one.
>
> The soft one is to create advantages for free software implementations of JSRs
> over proprietary ones, so that the value of proprietary JSR implementations
> decreases over time, and therefore the companies behind them lose the incentive
> to rig the system in their favor. No money, no problem.
Geir may have not expressed what he was thinking in the most
politically correct fashion, but I sense that you, me, and Geir
actually agree on more than one might expect.
The real issue is truly "free software" and "Esse quam videri"[1].
For the moment, let's not further define "free". Let's simply accept
that the FSF classifies[2] the Apache License, Version 2.0 as free and
move on.
One vision of the future is an inclusive one. It includes Harmony,
perhaps even as only a niche player. What's not so important is the
relative sizes of the markets, but the fact that by licensing one's
contribution for use in Harmony, it automatically becomes available to
everybody.
The other vision of the future is an exclusive one, one where there is
no Harmony. The only versions of Java are ones that "substantially
derive" from Sun's implementation. And the only way to contribute to
Sun's implementation is to assign Sun joint ownership.
One of those visions is truly free. The other one only seems to be so.
> The hard one is to use elections to gradually replace those members of the EC
> who don't vote against JSRs with NDAs, or proprietary TCKs or proprietary RIs by
> those that would do that, until a sufficient majority on the JCP EC exists to
> ensure that no such JSR can pass through ever again. Then, codify that as a
> change to the JCP and make it permanent, to make sure that we don't have to keep
> that majority all the time. Problem fixed for good.
>
> I don't know if the ASF is the right place for pushing through either strategy.
> I think there is some value in a two pronged approach, where the ASF gets to be
> all 'pragmatic', and others get to be all 'radical'.
At the moment, we seem to be living in a topsy-turvy world. One in
which those that you would expect to be 'radical' are either being
pragmatic or sitting on the sidelines. And one where those who are
earnestly trying to be 'pragmatic' are being portrayed[3] as being
radical, and therefore dangerous.
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esse_quam_videri
[2] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#SoftwareLicenses
[3] http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Chris Gray <ch...@...> writes:
>
> On Sunday 12 August 2007 05:30, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> > No - we have no standing in any "rift" related to the GPL TCK, since
> > we don't distribute software under the GPL. Dalibor may have a
> > problem, if he tries to get a license to certify Kaffe + GNU
> > Classpath, but I can't predict what will happen there.
>
> IIRC Dalibor has been trying for years to get a TCK license for Kaffe under
> the "scholarship" programme, without success - where success is defined as
> meaning "under conditions which make sense for the open source project in
> question". Rich's blog seems confirm what some of us had long suspected -
> that the whole scholarship thing was a sham, and Sun never intended to give
> TCK access to an independent free implementation.
>
In a project like Kaffe, that doesn't have a corporate sponsor, it makes sense
to reuse as much code as possible from other projects.
Almost all TCK licenses I've seen or heard of, including the current OpenJDK TCK
license, have NDA-like restrictions on communication. Such provisions make it
very hard to deal with potentially tons of issues raised by the TCK effectively
in a federated project, like Kaffe, where I have to talk to GNU Classpath and
other independent projects about fixing them. For projects like Kaffe,
certification can not possibly work under NDAs, unless the expected amount of
issues raised by the TCK is minimal.
So yeah, the JCP has always been discriminatory. The NDA requirements draw a
sharp line between those playing within the system and those outside it.
I understand the business advantage for those playing within the NDA system:
privileged access to the secret sauces during the making of JSRs lets them
exploit that informational advantage financially by being first to market, etc.
That sort of discrimination is system-endemic, i.e. the JCP works that way
because the last round of EC members deciding on it designed it that way.
That, unfortunately, is not a problem one can really fix from outside the JCP.
It's not a problem anyone except the EC could really fix. And I don't think it
will, as there is no current EC member that is going to fight against NDAs, or
fight against tying in proprietary software into JSRs, be it RIs, or TCKs.
It's clearly not in the interest of all the proprietary software vendors on the
EC, and the independents on it all probably have their own good reasons why they
didn't pick up such a fight so far (for example because they'd likely lose it
given the current distribution of seats between independents and proprietary
software vendors).
> Best thing is for all concerned - ASF, FSF, the various Classpath-based
> projects - to keep hammering at Sun to live up to their promises and actually
> make the Java language as free as most of the alternatives are.
>
JCP's fundamental problem is that it is heavily rigged in favor of proprietary
software vendors, and those within the system, at the expense of those outside
the system, who end up having to deal with the results of business models based
on keeping vital parts of the secret sauce proprietary. All the other problems
follow from that.
Unfortunately, turning around Sun only changes one vote on the EC. That's not
sufficient in order to fix the JCP.
There are two long term strategies I'd use to fix that problem: a soft one and a
hard one.
The soft one is to create advantages for free software implementations of JSRs
over proprietary ones, so that the value of proprietary JSR implementations
decreases over time, and therefore the companies behind them lose the incentive
to rig the system in their favor. No money, no problem.
The hard one is to use elections to gradually replace those members of the EC
who don't vote against JSRs with NDAs, or proprietary TCKs or proprietary RIs by
those that would do that, until a sufficient majority on the JCP EC exists to
ensure that no such JSR can pass through ever again. Then, codify that as a
change to the JCP and make it permanent, to make sure that we don't have to keep
that majority all the time. Problem fixed for good.
I don't know if the ASF is the right place for pushing through either strategy.
I think there is some value in a two pronged approach, where the ASF gets to be
all 'pragmatic', and others get to be all 'radical'.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Chris Gray <ch...@kiffer.be>.
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 00:59, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I'm in Leiden at the moment :) I'll be back in a week or two - I'll
> drop down to start that tour one night and we can talk about it...
That would be great. Note that I'm away in deepest Italy from 3-9 Sept, any
other time should be possible.
Cheers
Chris
--
Chris Gray /k/ Embedded Java Solutions BE0503765045
Embedded & Mobile Java, OSGi http://www.k-embedded-java.com/
chris.gray@kiffer.be +32 3 216 0369
Skype: k.embedded.chris
Re: Mika non-profit
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Lets take this private - I'm sure that the jcp-open list doesn't care :)
geir
On Oct 2, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Chris Gray wrote:
> Hi Geir,
>
> Still interested in a meal in Antwerp/Brussels?
>
>>> Look out, you may get yourself Shanghaied and taken on a forced
>>> tour of all
>>> the good restaurants here in Antwerp ... I need to get some advice
>>> on how
>>> best to set about this, even the choice of jurisdiction. I would
>>> certainly
>>> favour a broadly-based board, provided the regulators accept it
>>> (see e.g.
>>> <http://www.icnl.org/journal/vol2iss2/cn_western_europe.htm>). This
>>> is now
>>> off-topic for this ml, but expect me to come back to take you up on
>>> that. :-)
>>
>> I'm in Leiden at the moment :) I'll be back in a week or two - I'll
>> drop down to start that tour one night and we can talk about it...
>>
>> geir
>
> --
> Chris Gray /k/ Embedded Java Solutions BE0503765045
> Embedded & Mobile Java, OSGi http://www.k-embedded-java.com/
> chris.gray@kiffer.be +32 3 216 0369
> Skype: k.embedded.chris
>
Mika non-profit
Posted by Chris Gray <ch...@kiffer.be>.
Hi Geir,
Still interested in a meal in Antwerp/Brussels?
> > Look out, you may get yourself Shanghaied and taken on a forced
> > tour of all
> > the good restaurants here in Antwerp ... I need to get some advice
> > on how
> > best to set about this, even the choice of jurisdiction. I would
> > certainly
> > favour a broadly-based board, provided the regulators accept it
> > (see e.g.
> > <http://www.icnl.org/journal/vol2iss2/cn_western_europe.htm>). This
> > is now
> > off-topic for this ml, but expect me to come back to take you up on
> > that. :-)
>
> I'm in Leiden at the moment :) I'll be back in a week or two - I'll
> drop down to start that tour one night and we can talk about it...
>
> geir
--
Chris Gray /k/ Embedded Java Solutions BE0503765045
Embedded & Mobile Java, OSGi http://www.k-embedded-java.com/
chris.gray@kiffer.be +32 3 216 0369
Skype: k.embedded.chris
OT: MMMM....europe was Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
http://linuxintegrators.com/acoliver/travel/2007/08/13/x-0334.html
I'm SO doing Musta Lammas
http://www.ravintolamestarit.net/mustalammas/yhteys.htm (based on the
lonely planet description and featuring of duck)
/"Braised Reindeer neck with morel sauce, lemon risotto" mmmmm/
> Look out, you may get yourself Shanghaied and taken on a forced tour of all
> the good restaurants here in Antwerp ... I need to get some advice on how
> best to set about this, even the choice of jurisdiction. I would certainly
> favour a broadly-based board, provided the regulators accept it (see e.g.
> <http://www.icnl.org/journal/vol2iss2/cn_western_europe.htm>). This is now
> off-topic for this ml, but expect me to come back to take you up on that. :-)
>
> Chris
>
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 13, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Chris Gray wrote:
> On Sunday 12 August 2007 23:06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Chris Gray wrote:
>
>>> Sounds like it would be a good idea to put together a non-profit
>>> that can ask
>>> for TCK access for Mika. Wanna be a governor?
>>
>> I'd be happy to. We'd have to have board meetings in my favorite
>> restaurant in Brussel's though...
>
> Look out, you may get yourself Shanghaied and taken on a forced
> tour of all
> the good restaurants here in Antwerp ... I need to get some advice
> on how
> best to set about this, even the choice of jurisdiction. I would
> certainly
> favour a broadly-based board, provided the regulators accept it
> (see e.g.
> <http://www.icnl.org/journal/vol2iss2/cn_western_europe.htm>). This
> is now
> off-topic for this ml, but expect me to come back to take you up on
> that. :-)
I'm in Leiden at the moment :) I'll be back in a week or two - I'll
drop down to start that tour one night and we can talk about it...
geir
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
Chris Gray wrote:
> On Sunday 12 August 2007 23:06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Chris Gray wrote:
>
>>> Sounds like it would be a good idea to put together a non-profit
>>> that can ask
>>> for TCK access for Mika. Wanna be a governor?
>> I'd be happy to. We'd have to have board meetings in my favorite
>> restaurant in Brussel's though...
>
> Look out, you may get yourself Shanghaied and taken on a forced tour of all
> the good restaurants here in Antwerp ... I need to get some advice on how
> best to set about this, even the choice of jurisdiction. I would certainly
> favour a broadly-based board, provided the regulators accept it (see e.g.
> <http://www.icnl.org/journal/vol2iss2/cn_western_europe.htm>). This is now
> off-topic for this ml, but expect me to come back to take you up on that. :-)
>
> Chris
>
I belive joost policy is to run everything out of luxembourg for the
more relaxed governmental oversight. certainly you dont want to be
french, even accidentally.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Chris Gray <ch...@kiffer.be>.
On Sunday 12 August 2007 23:06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Chris Gray wrote:
> > Sounds like it would be a good idea to put together a non-profit
> > that can ask
> > for TCK access for Mika. Wanna be a governor?
>
> I'd be happy to. We'd have to have board meetings in my favorite
> restaurant in Brussel's though...
Look out, you may get yourself Shanghaied and taken on a forced tour of all
the good restaurants here in Antwerp ... I need to get some advice on how
best to set about this, even the choice of jurisdiction. I would certainly
favour a broadly-based board, provided the regulators accept it (see e.g.
<http://www.icnl.org/journal/vol2iss2/cn_western_europe.htm>). This is now
off-topic for this ml, but expect me to come back to take you up on that. :-)
Chris
--
Chris Gray /k/ Embedded Java Solutions BE0503765045
Embedded & Mobile Java, OSGi http://www.k-embedded-java.com/
chris.gray@kiffer.be +32 3 216 0369
Skype: k.embedded.chris
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Chris Gray wrote:
> On Sunday 12 August 2007 21:12, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> Don't let Sun confuse you regarding the "scholarship program" - it
>> has nothing to do with getting the TCK license itself, but rather is
>> a generous program by Sun to offer free support for TCKs.
>>
>> TCKs are *required* to be offered at no cost to qualified-non-profits
>> and individuals by the JSPA.
>
> I will cheerfully admit to being confused by this and any and all
> other
> aspects of Sun's policy wrt Java. :-)
>
> Sounds like it would be a good idea to put together a non-profit
> that can ask
> for TCK access for Mika. Wanna be a governor?
I'd be happy to. We'd have to have board meetings in my favorite
restaurant in Brussel's though...
geir
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Chris Gray <ch...@kiffer.be>.
On Sunday 12 August 2007 21:12, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Don't let Sun confuse you regarding the "scholarship program" - it
> has nothing to do with getting the TCK license itself, but rather is
> a generous program by Sun to offer free support for TCKs.
>
> TCKs are *required* to be offered at no cost to qualified-non-profits
> and individuals by the JSPA.
I will cheerfully admit to being confused by this and any and all other
aspects of Sun's policy wrt Java. :-)
Sounds like it would be a good idea to put together a non-profit that can ask
for TCK access for Mika. Wanna be a governor?
Chris
--
Chris Gray /k/ Embedded Java Solutions BE0503765045
Embedded & Mobile Java, OSGi http://www.k-embedded-java.com/
chris.gray@kiffer.be +32 3 216 0369
Skype: k.embedded.chris
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Chris Gray wrote:
> On Sunday 12 August 2007 05:30, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> No - we have no standing in any "rift" related to the GPL TCK, since
>> we don't distribute software under the GPL. Dalibor may have a
>> problem, if he tries to get a license to certify Kaffe + GNU
>> Classpath, but I can't predict what will happen there.
>
> IIRC Dalibor has been trying for years to get a TCK license for
> Kaffe under
> the "scholarship" programme, without success - where success is
> defined as
> meaning "under conditions which make sense for the open source
> project in
> question".
Don't let Sun confuse you regarding the "scholarship program" - it
has nothing to do with getting the TCK license itself, but rather is
a generous program by Sun to offer free support for TCKs.
TCKs are *required* to be offered at no cost to qualified-non-profits
and individuals by the JSPA.
> Rich's blog seems confirm what some of us had long suspected -
> that the whole scholarship thing was a sham, and Sun never intended
> to give
> TCK access to an independent free implementation.
I need to carefully re-read. But in light of what I wrote above, the
scholarship program *has* been useful.
>
> Best thing is for all concerned - ASF, FSF, the various Classpath-
> based
> projects - to keep hammering at Sun to live up to their promises
> and actually
> make the Java language as free as most of the alternatives are.
Yes.
geir
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Chris Gray <ch...@kiffer.be>.
On Sunday 12 August 2007 05:30, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> No - we have no standing in any "rift" related to the GPL TCK, since
> we don't distribute software under the GPL. Dalibor may have a
> problem, if he tries to get a license to certify Kaffe + GNU
> Classpath, but I can't predict what will happen there.
IIRC Dalibor has been trying for years to get a TCK license for Kaffe under
the "scholarship" programme, without success - where success is defined as
meaning "under conditions which make sense for the open source project in
question". Rich's blog seems confirm what some of us had long suspected -
that the whole scholarship thing was a sham, and Sun never intended to give
TCK access to an independent free implementation.
Best thing is for all concerned - ASF, FSF, the various Classpath-based
projects - to keep hammering at Sun to live up to their promises and actually
make the Java language as free as most of the alternatives are.
--
Chris Gray /k/ Embedded Java Solutions BE0503765045
Embedded & Mobile Java, OSGi http://www.k-embedded-java.com/
chris.gray@kiffer.be +32 3 216 0369
Skype: k.embedded.chris
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:30 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> While I find the GPL TCK interesting for all sorts of reasons, it really has
>>> nothing to do with our problem - Sun is obligated to offer the ASF a TCK
>>> license for Java SE that doesn't attempt to place usage restrictions on our
>>> users.
>>
>> I've often wondered how we would react to an offer by Sun to limit
>> the FOU restrictions to the marks conferred by certification, since
>> trademark restrictions aren't incompatible with our license. I guess
>> it probably still violates the JSPA, but it looks a lot more like
>> a bitter pill to swallow instead an act of open aggression against
>> the ASF.
>
> I think we'd be fine w/ the trademark restrictions, since they don't
> limit what our users can do with our software. AS a matter of fact,
> no TCK license grants trademark rights - that is an addendum.
>
> We never pass on Sun trademarks anyway - for example, we have the
> license to use the Java coffee cup w/ Geronimo, but we don't pass
> that license down to our users or redistributors - they can go to Sun
> for a trademark license if they so choose...
Academic at this point, unfortunately. Java qua open standard died
with Rich's blog- Sun either expects copyright interest in any
implementation, or imposes FOU restrictions on the implementor.
If the EC doesn't take a stand, I wouldn't be surprised if the next
step from Sun is to require GPL licensing from anyone involved in
the JCP scholarship program.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:30 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> While I find the GPL TCK interesting for all sorts of reasons, it
>> really has
>> nothing to do with our problem - Sun is obligated to offer the
>> ASF a TCK
>> license for Java SE that doesn't attempt to place usage
>> restrictions on our
>> users.
>
> I've often wondered how we would react to an offer by Sun to limit
> the FOU restrictions to the marks conferred by certification, since
> trademark restrictions aren't incompatible with our license. I guess
> it probably still violates the JSPA, but it looks a lot more like
> a bitter pill to swallow instead an act of open aggression against
> the ASF.
I think we'd be fine w/ the trademark restrictions, since they don't
limit what our users can do with our software. AS a matter of fact,
no TCK license grants trademark rights - that is an addendum.
We never pass on Sun trademarks anyway - for example, we have the
license to use the Java coffee cup w/ Geronimo, but we don't pass
that license down to our users or redistributors - they can go to Sun
for a trademark license if they so choose...
geir
>
> --
> Joe Schaefer
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> While I find the GPL TCK interesting for all sorts of reasons, it really has
> nothing to do with our problem - Sun is obligated to offer the ASF a TCK
> license for Java SE that doesn't attempt to place usage restrictions on our
> users.
I've often wondered how we would react to an offer by Sun to limit
the FOU restrictions to the marks conferred by certification, since
trademark restrictions aren't incompatible with our license. I guess
it probably still violates the JSPA, but it looks a lot more like
a bitter pill to swallow instead an act of open aggression against
the ASF.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 00:22 -0600, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> It also is a pretty shameless attempt to try to exploit/create a rift
>> between "free software" and "open source".
>
> Geir, please stop saying that. Sooner or later, someone will quote you
> on it.
Read Rich's blog.
>
> Sun is trying to create a rift between "free software" and "free
> software"! And we should continue to hammer that home into the
> heads of
> the "all software should be free" crowd.
For various definitions of "free", I guess.
>
> The rift goes between "GPL implementations of J2SE 6" and "GPL
> implementations of J2SE 6, based on the OpenJDK code". We simply
> happen
> to be on one side here, but the rift is not between "us" and
> "them". It
> is between "them" and "them, as defined by Sun".
No - we have no standing in any "rift" related to the GPL TCK, since
we don't distribute software under the GPL. Dalibor may have a
problem, if he tries to get a license to certify Kaffe + GNU
Classpath, but I can't predict what will happen there.
While I find the GPL TCK interesting for all sorts of reasons, it
really has nothing to do with our problem - Sun is obligated to offer
the ASF a TCK license for Java SE that doesn't attempt to place usage
restrictions on our users.
geir
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de>.
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 00:22 -0600, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> It also is a pretty shameless attempt to try to exploit/create a rift
> between "free software" and "open source".
Geir, please stop saying that. Sooner or later, someone will quote you
on it.
Sun is trying to create a rift between "free software" and "free
software"! And we should continue to hammer that home into the heads of
the "all software should be free" crowd.
The rift goes between "GPL implementations of J2SE 6" and "GPL
implementations of J2SE 6, based on the OpenJDK code". We simply happen
to be on one side here, but the rift is not between "us" and "them". It
is between "them" and "them, as defined by Sun".
Best regards
Henning
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux, |gls
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc
|m k
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> What I found interesting was that MS focused on making this an ECMA
> spec, not a "Microsoft spec". Perhaps they had already learned from
> simply watching the JCP?
Bad example. Microsoft also made OOXML an ECMA standard (ECMA-376),
and how open is that? See chapters 10, 12:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
cheers,
Roland
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Roland Weber <ro...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> What I found interesting was that MS focused on making this an ECMA
> spec, not a "Microsoft spec". Perhaps they had already learned from
> simply watching the JCP?
Bad example. Microsoft also made OOXML an ECMA standard (ECMA-376),
and how open is that? See chapters 10, 12:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
cheers,
Roland
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Wade Chandler <hw...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
> There are other means of actual action that could
> accomplish much the
> same thing. If the big bully keeps beating you when
> you play in his
> sand box...what do you do?
>
Well, I think most honorable people would say you
stand your ground, and that doesn't mean by running
away. By running away you let the bully keep being a
bully, but when you stand your ground you make real
change, not only for yourself, but also for the big
bully.
Wade
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Danese Cooper wrote:
>
> So from my perspective its critical that ASF continue to hold Sun's
> feet the to the fire for as long as Java isn't truly Open.
>
+1...but I don't think anyone disagrees there. The disagreement is
whether Apache continues to give credibility to a non-open
organization. It has been enough years to "call it".
There are other means of actual action that could accomplish much the
same thing. If the big bully keeps beating you when you play in his
sand box...what do you do?
-Andy
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Danese
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are we there yet... no, not at all. But we're
>>>> certainly headed in that direction and gaining
>>>> momentum.
>>>
>>> If this were not so, why would there be a .NET vm in the first place?
>>>
>>> What I found interesting was that MS focused on making this an ECMA
>>> spec, not a "Microsoft spec". Perhaps they had already learned from
>>> simply watching the JCP?
>>
>> I can't tell whether you are simply playing straight man, or whether
>> you are unaware of the history here. In any case, those who weren't
>> aware of the history, here are two links:
>>
>> http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/1999-05/sunflash.990506.1.xml
>> http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/1999-12/sunflash.991207.13.xml
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
OT: Python and Java Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
>
>
> The reason one can't hire enough Python programmers is that
> (1) Google tends to gobble 'em up *grin* and (2) corporate
> and educational powers have been brainwashed into seeing
> Java as the "only" "enterprise level" language suitable
> for use.
Python is hard on the fingers..a number of us don't like typing it.
Love Ruby though but think rails blows.
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> my husband's current job involves porting an application out of
> Python into Java. Not because they don't like Python. On the
> contrary, they love it. But they just can't hire enough qualified
> Python programmers to maintain and enhance their production
> system. Different story with Java. It takes years and a lot of
> money and momentum to create the kind of global acceptance Java has
> as a business programming tool, like it or not. Its a very
> valuable skill and seems like its here to stay for the time being.
>
Agreed... What is especially illuminating is comparing Java,
which had and has Sun's substantial marketing force behind
it, leveraging it every way it can, with other languages
which don't have such benefits, and grow and expand via
grass roots efforts. And even *then* they still make
substantial inroads.
The reason one can't hire enough Python programmers is that
(1) Google tends to gobble 'em up *grin* and (2) corporate
and educational powers have been brainwashed into seeing
Java as the "only" "enterprise level" language suitable
for use.
And this from someone who codes and enjoys Java (although
admittedly, it's not my language of choice).
But we are getting off-track here... the issue is not about
Java per-se, but rather Sun ignoring the letter and spirit of
the JSPA agreement with the ASF and trying to spread FUD,
at the expense of Java.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
Ah yes...interesting pre-JCP history. When MSFT got around to
submitting .NET, of course they also chose ECMA. It was a very
simple display of "more open standard than Java".
In fact, Sun's withdrawl of Java from ECMA is what precipitated the
formation of JCP, because Sun felt it couldn't get a "fair deal" at
ECMA, but was under enormous pressure from the stakeholder companies
to standardize.
The first JSPA was written to maximize points of Sun control while
appearing to be open. This is why the voting was by consensus
(giving Sun an effective veto vote even when all the other
stakeholders agreed against the Sun position). I must admit that ASF
was sought for a JCP member because it lent credibility to the claim
that JCP was open. Of course those of us pushing for a really Open
Java knew that Apache would gradually shed light on Sun's closed
practices and that as a result Sun would be forced to be really
open. But nobody thought it would be a quick or fun process.
I know its been frustrating to some of the general membership to have
ASF so much a part of this process, but back when Brian Behlendorf
first described the plan to incorporate a foundation around Apache to
me, Jakarta and Tomcat were part of that plan. As the Apache Web
Server neared code completion (more or less) it looked like Java was
a logical next step for the ASF, since it was a web-aware language
and was clearly going to be an important multi-vendor
playground...the point was to establish an open commons for Java,
which Apache has absolutely done.
What has been fascinating to me in the now long saga of Java is the
extent to which decisions about it have been motivated by business
politics and not by the technology. My husband has been coding in
Java since it was Oak. I originally took the job at Sun because he
thought they were screwing up Java with politics, and he naively
thought I could fix it...pretty funny to think about that now.
Having said all of that...wrt the earlier Ruby (or Python)
comments...my husband's current job involves porting an application
out of Python into Java. Not because they don't like Python. On the
contrary, they love it. But they just can't hire enough qualified
Python programmers to maintain and enhance their production system.
Different story with Java. It takes years and a lot of money and
momentum to create the kind of global acceptance Java has as a
business programming tool, like it or not. Its a very valuable skill
and seems like its here to stay for the time being.
So from my perspective its critical that ASF continue to hold Sun's
feet the to the fire for as long as Java isn't truly Open.
Thanks for listening.
Danese
On Aug 12, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 8/13/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Are we there yet... no, not at all. But we're
>>> certainly headed in that direction and gaining
>>> momentum.
>>
>> If this were not so, why would there be a .NET vm in the first place?
>>
>> What I found interesting was that MS focused on making this an ECMA
>> spec, not a "Microsoft spec". Perhaps they had already learned from
>> simply watching the JCP?
>
> I can't tell whether you are simply playing straight man, or whether
> you are unaware of the history here. In any case, those who weren't
> aware of the history, here are two links:
>
> http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/1999-05/sunflash.990506.1.xml
> http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/1999-12/sunflash.991207.13.xml
>
> - Sam Ruby
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 8/13/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > Are we there yet... no, not at all. But we're
> > certainly headed in that direction and gaining
> > momentum.
>
> If this were not so, why would there be a .NET vm in the first place?
>
> What I found interesting was that MS focused on making this an ECMA
> spec, not a "Microsoft spec". Perhaps they had already learned from
> simply watching the JCP?
I can't tell whether you are simply playing straight man, or whether
you are unaware of the history here. In any case, those who weren't
aware of the history, here are two links:
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/1999-05/sunflash.990506.1.xml
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/1999-12/sunflash.991207.13.xml
- Sam Ruby
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Are we there yet... no, not at all. But we're
> certainly headed in that direction and gaining
> momentum.
If this were not so, why would there be a .NET vm in the first place?
What I found interesting was that MS focused on making this an ECMA
spec, not a "Microsoft spec". Perhaps they had already learned from
simply watching the JCP?
Bill
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Wade Chandler <hw...@yahoo.com>.
--- Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2007, at 2:22 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr.
> wrote:
>
> >
> > No - the way Sun is playing this, we all lose. We
> ned to fix
> > this. Java is too important.
> >
>
> I hear this a lot, and although I agree that Java is
> important, I don't think that it's "so" important
> that
> significant time and energy be spent on fixing
> something
> and maintaining something that a large and
> controlling
> entity feels the need to do everything it can to
> bury it...
>
> In other words, if Sun continues down this path,
> which
> will invariably lead to Java becoming less and less
> significant due to the community finally having
> reached their fill of all this funny business,
> another
> language and "technology" will for sure take its
> place.
>
> It would be like saying, tens of millions of
> years ago, we need to stop the impending comet;
> dinosaurs are too important. In both cases, it's
> a specific heavenly body creating the disaster.
>
> Note this has nothing to do with the EC or JCP
> or JSPA, but simple survival of the fittest.
>
> Are we there yet... no, not at all. But we're
> certainly headed in that direction and gaining
> momentum.
>
These are just my ops, but...
I think you first have to think about where it is
coming from. Sun didn't just wake up one day and have
Java there with no investment. They have spent a lot
of money on it, and much more I'm sure than any other
company as you have to factor in up front development
costs and everything else. It is much like the
Microsoft argument and documenting Windows APIs etc.
People have been saying this about Windows for years,
and it is still there and still the most used OS. I'm
typing this on a machine with SuSE Linux, but most of
my systems have windows, and even this one has windows
run in a VMWare virtual machine...which I paid money
for because the version VMWare gives away for free
doesn't work so good.
So, while I don't like the tactics, I understand where
the disconnect between engineers and corporate
management is coming into play. Look at the IBM v
Amazon law suit. It isn't like IBM has any investment
in the development of the up front HTTP protocol and
HTML, yet they have a patent which they some how
obtained which they believe should entitle them to
force one to pay money to be able to use an already
existing system, which they didn't develop, which
supports adding graphics and advertisements to a web
page. Not much different really; I'm sure their
engineers are going...WTF!!!! There are new laws which
will make this harder, but IBM has so much money...who
is going to challenge them in court if it is cheaper
to concede? I'm sure if Amazon wanted to take it all
the way, and could find a jury smart enough to
understand the issues, then they would have won hands
down instead of conceding. I'm betting they could have
gotten that patent overturned.
Anyways, this is the first step down the road into
what is eventually going to happen. Sun is going to
have to let go of the reigns, and it is going to
happen. I think this is going to up the stakes a
bit...the deal with GPL and the OpenJDK project as it
doesn't make sense and will be hard to defend from a
logical perspective. I also think that Apache needs to
be pushing every angle from the JCP perspective:
1) Get everyone on a working group talking about every
TCK and RI license terms and force each and every spec
lead to be upfront with the license text (which are
the terms) in its full.
2) See (check with others) what power if any the EC
has in voting down a specification (next Java
specification for instance) if the license terms are
out of step with the agreement and process.
3) See what power the EC has if any to go back and do
something about maintenance of a previous JSR based on
JSPA and process infringements. Can they do anything
about the spec lead or go back and take down a JSR?
4) Keep doing what they are doing to try to bring
focus on the issue.
>From a changing the process perspective, this really
isn't much different than what has happened over the
years with the ANSI/ISO and the C++ specifications
etc. You get different companies (members) messing
with the process because of investments etc and them
not wanting to agree on anything or changes as they
don't want to have to redo something or break backward
compatibility in the name of making something
better...on and on. Then on top of that there doesn't
seem to be anything for the end binary and linking
standards for C++ even on the same OS and
architecture, and I'm sure we won't get companies to
agree on it as you have different members who want to
have libraries which can't be accessed or linked to
easily from competitors. In this instance, JCP, you
have a way in which things have been taking place
between Sun, Oracle, IBM, BEA, etc as it relates to
JVMs and it has worked for them. These companies have
money and resources and trade back and forth on
different resources, which is different from the way
an open-source organization or individual or small
company would like for these things to work.
Now, you have folks wanting this whole process to open
up, and there is inevitably going to be resistance on
both sides of the issue. If nobody ever went through
these processes to see them through then nothing would
necessarily get better. I bet getting a compiler
ANSI/ISO compatible certified would not be cheap as I
don't know if there is any standard kit for it, and
probably many companies have their own verification
kits which someone would have to purchase, IBM doesn't
even list a price on their site I can see for
this...usually means you don't want to know the price,
so at least in the JCP process there is a TCK which is
part of the specification and the entire process of
implementing a specification.
I think anything will take time, but it seems to me
the issue for Apache to be pushing for is generally
open JSRs with open-source TCKs and RIs or at least
non-proprietary instead of specifically targeting one
and using the one at issue as an example. This seems
like it could get more members on board faster that
way. Once the JCP process is fixed then we shouldn't
ever see an issue as this again, and then the JCP
should be a much better, more efficient, and working
group.
Wade
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 11, 2007, at 2:22 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> No - the way Sun is playing this, we all lose. We ned to fix
> this. Java is too important.
>
I hear this a lot, and although I agree that Java is
important, I don't think that it's "so" important that
significant time and energy be spent on fixing something
and maintaining something that a large and controlling
entity feels the need to do everything it can to
bury it...
In other words, if Sun continues down this path, which
will invariably lead to Java becoming less and less
significant due to the community finally having
reached their fill of all this funny business, another
language and "technology" will for sure take its
place.
It would be like saying, tens of millions of
years ago, we need to stop the impending comet;
dinosaurs are too important. In both cases, it's
a specific heavenly body creating the disaster.
Note this has nothing to do with the EC or JCP
or JSPA, but simple survival of the fittest.
Are we there yet... no, not at all. But we're
certainly headed in that direction and gaining
momentum.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 12, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> It also is a pretty shameless attempt to try to exploit/create a
>> rift between
>> "free software" and "open source".
>
> Then for Christ sakes let's not help them do that by
> running around calling the FSF's principles into question.
Fair point. I didn't think I was questioning as much as observing a
shift. Good organizations adapt.
geir
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> It also is a pretty shameless attempt to try to exploit/create a rift between
> "free software" and "open source".
Then for Christ sakes let's not help them do that by
running around calling the FSF's principles into question.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Okay...so when do we surrender?
Why would we surrender?
> Geir? How do we surrender?
We don't surrender. There's no reason to surrender. We're doing
just fine. I think this is a big mistake on Sun's part. It's a
discriminatory license (also forbidden by the JSPA) and takes away
Sun's ability to claim that we're offered the same terms as any other
implementor.
It also is a pretty shameless attempt to try to exploit/create a rift
between "free software" and "open source".
> Or wait...we can just indefinitely vote against sun specs and do
> nothing more as a means of surrendering. cool. Sun wins, apache
> looses.
No - the way Sun is playing this, we all lose. We ned to fix this.
Java is too important.
Essentially, I think sun is simply trying to change the subject.
Their violation of the JSPA doesn't go away - and we're not going away.
geir
>
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not clear on this...are the TCKs themselves being made available
>>> under GPL or just being made "available" to those who use GPL?
>>>
>>
>> To those who's implementation is derived from Sun's implementation
>> and,
>> apparently, "copy-back" as opposed to "copy-left".
>>
>> Any other implementation, GPL, AL or otherwise, is not granted
>> this TCK
>> license.
>>
>> E.g. the "non-discriminatory terms" requirement are apparently an
>> inconvenient
>> clause of the JSPA, to Sun's J2SE crew.
>>
>
>
> --
> Buni Meldware Communication Suite
> http://buni.org
> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including
> freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of installation/
> administration.
>
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Okay...so when do we surrender? Geir? How do we surrender? Or
wait...we can just indefinitely vote against sun specs and do nothing
more as a means of surrendering. cool. Sun wins, apache looses.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> I'm not clear on this...are the TCKs themselves being made available
>> under GPL or just being made "available" to those who use GPL?
>>
>
> To those who's implementation is derived from Sun's implementation and,
> apparently, "copy-back" as opposed to "copy-left".
>
> Any other implementation, GPL, AL or otherwise, is not granted this TCK
> license.
>
> E.g. the "non-discriminatory terms" requirement are apparently an inconvenient
> clause of the JSPA, to Sun's J2SE crew.
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> I'm not clear on this...are the TCKs themselves being made available
> under GPL or just being made "available" to those who use GPL?
To those who's implementation is derived from Sun's implementation and,
apparently, "copy-back" as opposed to "copy-left".
Any other implementation, GPL, AL or otherwise, is not granted this TCK
license.
E.g. the "non-discriminatory terms" requirement are apparently an inconvenient
clause of the JSPA, to Sun's J2SE crew.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
I'm not clear on this...are the TCKs themselves being made available
under GPL or just being made "available" to those who use GPL?
Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 8/9/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
>>>> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
>>>> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
>>>> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
>>>> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
>>>> compatibility kit terms.
>>>>
>> I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
>>
>
> Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 8/11/07, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 8/10/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I have no clue anymore about what the FEF will or will not like. The
> > key test will be if they sign Sun's contribution agreement for pieces
> > of GNU Classpath that Sun needs, so that Sun will have joint
> > copyright, letting them re-license under closed terms to IBM, BEA,
> > APple, Oracle, etc.
>
> As there is little reason for us not to communicate with the FSF, I
> just sent an email to licensing@gnu.org about this. I'll be curious
> if I get a response - and if I'm allowed to publicly quote it.
IMHO it would be better to invite interested parties from the FSF to
participate on this list. it will be easier that way to work out what
information they are happy with being public and which they are not.
> Interesting times indeed - but there's no need for us to guess what
> the FSF thinks - we should be able to ask them!
they may not be ready to talk publicly right now but yes, we should
ask rather than guess
- robert
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 8/10/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I have no clue anymore about what the FEF will or will not like. The
> key test will be if they sign Sun's contribution agreement for pieces
> of GNU Classpath that Sun needs, so that Sun will have joint
> copyright, letting them re-license under closed terms to IBM, BEA,
> APple, Oracle, etc.
As there is little reason for us not to communicate with the FSF, I
just sent an email to licensing@gnu.org about this. I'll be curious
if I get a response - and if I'm allowed to publicly quote it.
Interesting times indeed - but there's no need for us to guess what
the FSF thinks - we should be able to ask them! -- justin
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
But FSF has always been willing to sell out for the "big picture".
GNU Classpath exception was a huge concession, for instance.
Danese
On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 00:25 -0600, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I have no clue anymore about what the FEF will or will not like. The
>> key test will be if they sign Sun's contribution agreement for pieces
>> of GNU Classpath that Sun needs, so that Sun will have joint
>> copyright, letting them re-license under closed terms to IBM, BEA,
>> APple, Oracle, etc.
>>
>> If that happens, it represents a complete inversion of the FSF
>> philosophy, from working to make all source code free, to being an
>> enabler of and contributor to closed source software. Ironic.
>
> We should make this loud and clear to the /. crowd.
>
> "FSF selling out their core values" sounds a too good headline to
> let it
> go. :-)
>
> Best regards
> Henning
>
> --
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE,
> Linux, |gls
> 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache
> person |eau
> Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine
> guy |rwc
>
> |m k
> INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB
> 7350 |a s
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning
> Schmiedehausen |n
>
>
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de>.
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 00:25 -0600, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I have no clue anymore about what the FEF will or will not like. The
> key test will be if they sign Sun's contribution agreement for pieces
> of GNU Classpath that Sun needs, so that Sun will have joint
> copyright, letting them re-license under closed terms to IBM, BEA,
> APple, Oracle, etc.
>
> If that happens, it represents a complete inversion of the FSF
> philosophy, from working to make all source code free, to being an
> enabler of and contributor to closed source software. Ironic.
We should make this loud and clear to the /. crowd.
"FSF selling out their core values" sounds a too good headline to let it
go. :-)
Best regards
Henning
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux, |gls
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc
|m k
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 10, 2007, at 5:12 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:19 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:
>
>> "An implementation is "substantially derived" from the OpenJDK
>> code base
>> if it includes a large body of code existing in the code base that
>> does
>> something identifiably significant, or implements some set of APIs in
>> their entirety. The code need not be part of Sun's implementation it
>> only needs to exist in the code base."
>>
>> the 'substantially derived' clause is there to stop anyone testing a
>> harmony release that I made under GPL, and certifying compliance.
>
> Which means that they are driving a wedge between "OpenJDK derived GPL
> implementations" and "grass roots GPL implementations" of J2SE 6 and
> beyond. The TCK license speaks only of J2SE 6.
That's because it's the only one relevant now for testing.
>
> Now that is IMHO something that the FSF will not like... Maybe we
> should
> point this out specifically to RMS and just sit back.
I have no clue anymore about what the FEF will or will not like. The
key test will be if they sign Sun's contribution agreement for pieces
of GNU Classpath that Sun needs, so that Sun will have joint
copyright, letting them re-license under closed terms to IBM, BEA,
APple, Oracle, etc.
If that happens, it represents a complete inversion of the FSF
philosophy, from working to make all source code free, to being an
enabler of and contributor to closed source software. Ironic.
We live in interesting times.
geir
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de>.
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:19 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:
> "An implementation is "substantially derived" from the OpenJDK code base
> if it includes a large body of code existing in the code base that does
> something identifiably significant, or implements some set of APIs in
> their entirety. The code need not be part of Sun's implementation it
> only needs to exist in the code base."
>
> the 'substantially derived' clause is there to stop anyone testing a
> harmony release that I made under GPL, and certifying compliance.
Which means that they are driving a wedge between "OpenJDK derived GPL
implementations" and "grass roots GPL implementations" of J2SE 6 and
beyond. The TCK license speaks only of J2SE 6.
Now that is IMHO something that the FSF will not like... Maybe we should
point this out specifically to RMS and just sit back.
Best regards
Henning
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux, |gls
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc
|m k
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 22:55 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 8/9/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
>>>>> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
>>>>> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
>>>>> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
>>>>> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
>>>>> compatibility kit terms.
>>> I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
>> Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
>>
>> http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
>>
>
Also quoting
"But because the Apache code is not governed by the GPL, and does not
require code sharing by any entity using or modifying Harmony, the terms
of this license are the same terms under which Sun licenses the JCK to
commercial entities that build their own independent implementations of
the Java SE platform. As was made clear in their open letter to Sun, the
ASF is not satisfied with these terms."
Does this mean no other JDK licensee has the right to embed java SE?
"anyone—yes, even Sun’s competitors—can use the Java GPL source code for
anything—yes, even a fork—as long as they publish their modifications
under the GPL—no other consideration required"
Actually, GPL says anything I do internally is my business. I can deploy
a modified GC algorithm on my 50K servers and
> Quoting:
>
>
> BTW: Where *are* the terms of that license?
dalibor has the pointers
http://robilad.livejournal.com/17156.html
See the license: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-tck-license.pdf
and the FAQ: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#k
"Implementations must be substantially derived from the OpenJDK source
code and must be distributed under GPL which of course would be a
requirement of any implementation making use of code from the OpenJDK
code commons"
"An implementation is "substantially derived" from the OpenJDK code base
if it includes a large body of code existing in the code base that does
something identifiably significant, or implements some set of APIs in
their entirety. The code need not be part of Sun's implementation it
only needs to exist in the code base."
the 'substantially derived' clause is there to stop anyone testing a
harmony release that I made under GPL, and certifying compliance.
well, fine, but I hope nobody in Sun was expecting anyone in the ant
team to implement
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42838 , Add support
for JSR 199: Java Compiler API
Which means that netbeans wont support it either. They lose.
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
Thx.
It speaks specifically of J2SE 6. Very interesting.
Best regards
Henning
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 06:17 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 8/10/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 22:55 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > > I would consider the following to be a response:
> > >
> > > http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
> >
> > Quoting:
> >
> > --- cut ---
> > Sun is making the Java SE JCK—the TCK compatibility tests that determine
> > whether an implementation faithfully conforms to the Java SE
> > specification—available to the Java GPL software community using a
> > license that continues to protect the Java compatibility promise while
> > respecting the values of free software.
> > --- cut ---
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > BTW: Where *are* the terms of that license?
>
> http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-tck-license.pdf
>
> - Sam Ruby
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 8/10/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 22:55 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > I would consider the following to be a response:
> >
> > http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
>
> Quoting:
>
> --- cut ---
> Sun is making the Java SE JCK—the TCK compatibility tests that determine
> whether an implementation faithfully conforms to the Java SE
> specification—available to the Java GPL software community using a
> license that continues to protect the Java compatibility promise while
> respecting the values of free software.
> --- cut ---
>
[snip]
>
> BTW: Where *are* the terms of that license?
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-tck-license.pdf
- Sam Ruby
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 22:55 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 8/9/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
> >
> > > Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > >> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
> > >> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
> > >> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
> > >> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
> > >> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
> > >> compatibility kit terms.
> >
> > I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
>
> Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
>
Quoting:
--- cut ---
Sun is making the Java SE JCK—the TCK compatibility tests that determine
whether an implementation faithfully conforms to the Java SE
specification—available to the Java GPL software community using a
license that continues to protect the Java compatibility promise while
respecting the values of free software.
--- cut ---
That is basically shooting fish in a barrel. They do not do this. They
require the "Java GPL" code based on OpenJDK, trying to keep every other
Java GPL implementation" out. This is something where it should be
possible to find common ground with the FSF.
BTW: Where *are* the terms of that license?
Best regards
Henning
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Gilles Scokart <gs...@gmail.com>.
> >
> > I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
>
> Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Yes, but not the right ;-)
He didn't talk about the contradiction with the JSPA. Which was the
core argument of the open letter.
I'm also curious about their position against GPLv3, released since
June. Shouldn't they allow also GPLv3 to be consistant with their
arguments?
My interpretation can be wrong, but if they allow GPLv3, someone could
make a GPLv3 distribution based on Harmony, and pass the TCK test with
this distribution.
That would not change anything to the contradiction of their position,
and would not allow the Apache Harmony distribution to have the "Java
Compatible brand". But that would just give one more illustration of
the weakness of their positions.
--
Gilles SCOKART
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 8/9/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> > Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
> >> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
> >> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
> >> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
> >> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
> >> compatibility kit terms.
>
> I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
- Sam Ruby
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
>> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
>> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
>> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
>> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
>> compatibility kit terms.
>
I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
>
> Its always dangerous to interpret things as rewritten by
> journalists. All that is definite is that some change has been made
> to the "scholarship program" (?), to remove "obligations that
> precluded shipping software under the GPL". All interpretations
> beyond that are up to the journalists, though presumably they may
> have got some impressions from Sun that this helps OSS Java,
> because, well, its an important message to get across -and if you
> can present any change as helping this, then of course you would.
No - as I understand it, they are simply offering a different TCK
license for OpenJDK and anything that is "substantially" based on
OpenJDK.
>
> More subtly, it shows how the pass-the-TCK-and-you-can-ship rule
> hurts Sun OSS Java as much as anything else, because trying to keep
> the TCK a secret -and anything that isnt available in an svn co or
> a tar download is effectively secret- stops people testing their
> changes to OSS java. so anyone working on it is going to slowly
> diverge from the production system, which increases the cost of
> bringing patches into the main codebase. Which reduces the chance
> that your patches get pulled in. And that reduces the value in
> working on the project.
>
> everybody loses.
>
> But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes, and an alternate
> action by sunw would have been to make the tck freely avaiable.
> That hasnt happened. There's not much we can do in response, other
> than cut back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next
> product release tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java
> code for the rest of august. Because there are other things out
> there, and the one that interests me has the name Erlang. Time to
> start the first erlang-related work at apache, I think
>
> -steve
Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news
>
>
> But the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort to
> build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a Harmony
> leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the compatibility kit
> terms.
Its always dangerous to interpret things as rewritten by journalists.
All that is definite is that some change has been made to the
"scholarship program" (?), to remove "obligations that precluded
shipping software under the GPL". All interpretations beyond that are up
to the journalists, though presumably they may have got some impressions
from Sun that this helps OSS Java, because, well, its an important
message to get across -and if you can present any change as helping
this, then of course you would.
More subtly, it shows how the pass-the-TCK-and-you-can-ship rule hurts
Sun OSS Java as much as anything else, because trying to keep the TCK a
secret -and anything that isnt available in an svn co or a tar download
is effectively secret- stops people testing their changes to OSS java.
so anyone working on it is going to slowly diverge from the production
system, which increases the cost of bringing patches into the main
codebase. Which reduces the chance that your patches get pulled in. And
that reduces the value in working on the project.
everybody loses.
But, Actions do speak louder than words sometimes, and an alternate
action by sunw would have been to make the tck freely avaiable. That
hasnt happened. There's not much we can do in response, other than cut
back on java coding. Accordingly, after I make the next product release
tomorrow, I will stop writing a single line of Java code for the rest of
august. Because there are other things out there, and the one that
interests me has the name Erlang. Time to start the first erlang-related
work at apache, I think
-steve