Fwd: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[Steven Shaw <st...@gmail.com>]

Interesting!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Coldrick <da...@sun.com>
Date: 13-Nov-2006 05:06
Subject: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced
To: ajug@yahoogroups.com


Well, it's finally happening, both Java ME and Java SE. The details will
be available at http://www.sun.com/opensource/java. Believe it or not,
you can participate in the Q&A
(http://millionsofus.com/blog/archives/110) at the Sun Pavilion
(http://tinyurl.com/m338r) in Second Life, Monday, November 13, 2006
from 1:00pm - 2:00pm PT.

For the more traditional folks, there will be a webcast of the event at
9:30am PST at http://sun.com/javanews (RealPlayer 10 or higher required).

The licencing will be GPLv2 (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), with
what's commonly referred to as the Classpath Exception
(http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/) included in Java SE. This last
basically allows for programs to subclass Java runtime classes without
invoking the "viral" nature of the GPL.

Java EE - see the GlassFish project - will also be available under
GPLv2, as well as its current CDDL licencing.

Exciting times, indeed.

Regards,
David

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[John O'Hara <jo...@gmail.com>]

Totally agree with that last sentiment - JVM DomU coming real soon.


On 15/11/06, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> John O'Hara wrote:
> > It's outstanding.  Java unleashed (for all practical purposes).
> >
> > Bound to have long term repercussions in open source projects, for
> > operating
> > systems, for C++ (damages it, probably), and for Open Office and Gnome
> --
> > after all, why use Mono, which is probably tainted in some way, now
> > you can
> > use Java?????
> Agree mono is now dead.
> >
> > Gnome was, as I understand it, on the verge of incorporating Mono to
> > get a
> > nicer programming environment. Gnome with an embedded JVM, given that
> > Java
> > is no longer a slouch, would would be better than Mono, imho.
> >
> > This also is interesting for Virtualisation -- because an unfettered JVM
> > running directly on Xen could give POSIX a run for its money in the
> > fullness
> > of time.
> not sure, I think vert and JVM lines will blur very quickly and the on
> platforms where
> posix is making massive strides, the JVM will be able to get to these
> advances in the years
> to come. I expect the first step might be a JVM run as a DomU in the
> near future.
>
> Carl.
>

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

John O'Hara wrote:
> It's outstanding.  Java unleashed (for all practical purposes).
>
> Bound to have long term repercussions in open source projects, for 
> operating
> systems, for C++ (damages it, probably), and for Open Office and Gnome --
> after all, why use Mono, which is probably tainted in some way, now 
> you can
> use Java?????
Agree mono is now dead.
>
> Gnome was, as I understand it, on the verge of incorporating Mono to 
> get a
> nicer programming environment. Gnome with an embedded JVM, given that 
> Java
> is no longer a slouch, would would be better than Mono, imho.
>
> This also is interesting for Virtualisation -- because an unfettered JVM
> running directly on Xen could give POSIX a run for its money in the 
> fullness
> of time.
not sure, I think vert and JVM lines will blur very quickly and the on 
platforms where
posix is making massive strides, the JVM will be able to get to these 
advances in the years
to come. I expect the first step might be a JVM run as a DomU in the 
near future.

Carl.

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[John O'Hara <jo...@gmail.com>]

It's outstanding.  Java unleashed (for all practical purposes).

Bound to have long term repercussions in open source projects, for operating
systems, for C++ (damages it, probably), and for Open Office and Gnome --
after all, why use Mono, which is probably tainted in some way, now you can
use Java?????

Gnome was, as I understand it, on the verge of incorporating Mono to get a
nicer programming environment. Gnome with an embedded JVM, given that Java
is no longer a slouch, would would be better than Mono, imho.

This also is interesting for Virtualisation -- because an unfettered JVM
running directly on Xen could give POSIX a run for its money in the fullness
of time.

Very interesting times.
John



On 13/11/06, Steven Shaw <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 13/11/06, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Java is clearly is in the first camp - thus I believe GPL is the best
> > choice they could have made.
>
> I agree. For Sun and Java it was an excellent decision.
>
> Steve.
>

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[Steven Shaw <st...@gmail.com>]

On 13/11/06, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Java is clearly is in the first camp - thus I believe GPL is the best
> choice they could have made.

I agree. For Sun and Java it was an excellent decision.

Steve.

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

Steven Shaw wrote:
> On 13/11/06, Steve Vinoski <vi...@iona.com> wrote:
>> One item that the author gets completely wrong IMO is blaming the
>> rumor about GPL being viral on a speech by Craig Mundie in May 2001.
>> That alleged rumor had been circulating for the better part of the
>> decade preceding that speech, and I'm sure Mundie's speech only
>> echoed that "rumor." I haven't yet read the other nine items, so I
>> can't comment on their accuracy.
>
> I completely agree. I always thought that GPL was viral. Still do :).
> Much prefer BSD/MIT style licensing.
Depends what for....

GPL is great for keeping all the contribution coming back to the 
project, and not having vendors trying
to sell value add forks.

BSD is great were you don't have the above dynamic and want to have 
vendor ISV's / repackaging.

Java is clearly is in the first camp - thus I believe GPL is the best 
choice they could have made.

Carl.

>
> Steve.

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[Steven Shaw <st...@gmail.com>]

On 13/11/06, Steve Vinoski <vi...@iona.com> wrote:
> One item that the author gets completely wrong IMO is blaming the
> rumor about GPL being viral on a speech by Craig Mundie in May 2001.
> That alleged rumor had been circulating for the better part of the
> decade preceding that speech, and I'm sure Mundie's speech only
> echoed that "rumor." I haven't yet read the other nine items, so I
> can't comment on their accuracy.

I completely agree. I always thought that GPL was viral. Still do :).
Much prefer BSD/MIT style licensing.

Steve.

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[Steve Vinoski <vi...@iona.com>]

On Nov 13, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Steven Shaw wrote:

> On 13/11/06, Steve Vinoski <vi...@iona.com> wrote:
>> It's unfortunately GPL, which to the best of my knowledge means it
>> won't help us here (see [1]).
>
> I don't understand what you are getting at. I think GPL is a good  
> move. I
> understand about [1]. This is the platform/runtime. We run Apache Qpid
> Java on the propretary Java runtime now, don't we? In particular, I  
> thought
> this move might make RedHat think differently about focusing on Java
> technology...

IANAL. I was merely pointing out what [1] says about GPL and Apache  
software.

> When the GPL license for JRE was just a rumour, Javalobby sent a  
> newsletter
> about that. Here's an bit of that. The link to the "10 common
> misunderstandings about the GPL" is probably worth a read.
>
> GPL is so open source, in fact, that many are concerned to use GPL- 
> based
> packages in their own technology. The myth is that if you use any GPL
> technology in your product, then your product will be "infected" by  
> legal
> provisions in the GPL, and you will be required to open source your
> technology under the same terms as the GPL technology you  
> incorporated.
> While it is true that GPL has provisions that may have consequences  
> for your
> GPL-based products, it is not nearly as simple as the viral  
> infection myth
> that appears to have originated within corridors of a certain  
> software giant
> located in Redmond, Washington. For an excellent overview of this  
> issue and
> several related issues, I highly recommend the article "10 common
> misunderstandings about the GPL <http://www.dzone.com/r/6566>" by  
> Bruce
> Byfield. If it is true that GPL will govern the core Java platform,  
> then
> you'll most likely want to have a better sense of what that may  
> mean to you.

One item that the author gets completely wrong IMO is blaming the  
rumor about GPL being viral on a speech by Craig Mundie in May 2001.  
That alleged rumor had been circulating for the better part of the  
decade preceding that speech, and I'm sure Mundie's speech only  
echoed that "rumor." I haven't yet read the other nine items, so I  
can't comment on their accuracy.

But as I say, IANAL. I'm also not looking for an argument. I'll leave  
it to the lawyers to decide whether GPL is a good move or not in  
general, and I'll leave it to legal-minded people in Apache to decide  
what this means for Apache software.

--steve

>
> Cheers,
> Steve.

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[Steven Shaw <st...@gmail.com>]

On 13/11/06, Steve Vinoski <vi...@iona.com> wrote:
> It's unfortunately GPL, which to the best of my knowledge means it
> won't help us here (see [1]).

I don't understand what you are getting at. I think GPL is a good move. I
understand about [1]. This is the platform/runtime. We run Apache Qpid
Java on the propretary Java runtime now, don't we? In particular, I thought
this move might make RedHat think differently about focusing on Java
technology...

When the GPL license for JRE was just a rumour, Javalobby sent a newsletter
about that. Here's an bit of that. The link to the "10 common
misunderstandings about the GPL" is probably worth a read.

GPL is so open source, in fact, that many are concerned to use GPL-based
packages in their own technology. The myth is that if you use any GPL
technology in your product, then your product will be "infected" by legal
provisions in the GPL, and you will be required to open source your
technology under the same terms as the GPL technology you incorporated.
While it is true that GPL has provisions that may have consequences for your
GPL-based products, it is not nearly as simple as the viral infection myth
that appears to have originated within corridors of a certain software giant
located in Redmond, Washington. For an excellent overview of this issue and
several related issues, I highly recommend the article "10 common
misunderstandings about the GPL <http://www.dzone.com/r/6566>" by Bruce
Byfield. If it is true that GPL will govern the core Java platform, then
you'll most likely want to have a better sense of what that may mean to you.

Cheers,
Steve.

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

I think it is great that it is GPL, it keeps all the contributions 
following back to project. GPL should not
be an issue also, as Java has a well defined API / spec from JCP, so it 
is not much different than us using
gcc and Linux libs.

Carl.


Steve Vinoski wrote:
> It's unfortunately GPL, which to the best of my knowledge means it 
> won't help us here (see [1]).
>
> --steve
>
> [1] <http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html>
>
> On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:49 AM, Steven Shaw wrote:
>
>> Interesting!
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: David Coldrick <da...@sun.com>
>> Date: 13-Nov-2006 05:06
>> Subject: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced
>> To: ajug@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>> Well, it's finally happening, both Java ME and Java SE. The details will
>> be available at http://www.sun.com/opensource/java. Believe it or not,
>> you can participate in the Q&A
>> (http://millionsofus.com/blog/archives/110) at the Sun Pavilion
>> (http://tinyurl.com/m338r) in Second Life, Monday, November 13, 2006
>> from 1:00pm - 2:00pm PT.
>>
>> For the more traditional folks, there will be a webcast of the event at
>> 9:30am PST at http://sun.com/javanews (RealPlayer 10 or higher 
>> required).
>>
>> The licencing will be GPLv2 (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), with
>> what's commonly referred to as the Classpath Exception
>> (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/) included in Java SE. This last
>> basically allows for programs to subclass Java runtime classes without
>> invoking the "viral" nature of the GPL.
>>
>> Java EE - see the GlassFish project - will also be available under
>> GPLv2, as well as its current CDDL licencing.
>>
>> Exciting times, indeed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> David
>

Re: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced

[Steve Vinoski <vi...@iona.com>]

It's unfortunately GPL, which to the best of my knowledge means it  
won't help us here (see [1]).

--steve

[1] <http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html>

On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:49 AM, Steven Shaw wrote:

> Interesting!
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Coldrick <da...@sun.com>
> Date: 13-Nov-2006 05:06
> Subject: [ajug] Java Open-Sourced
> To: ajug@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Well, it's finally happening, both Java ME and Java SE. The details  
> will
> be available at http://www.sun.com/opensource/java. Believe it or not,
> you can participate in the Q&A
> (http://millionsofus.com/blog/archives/110) at the Sun Pavilion
> (http://tinyurl.com/m338r) in Second Life, Monday, November 13, 2006
> from 1:00pm - 2:00pm PT.
>
> For the more traditional folks, there will be a webcast of the  
> event at
> 9:30am PST at http://sun.com/javanews (RealPlayer 10 or higher  
> required).
>
> The licencing will be GPLv2 (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html),  
> with
> what's commonly referred to as the Classpath Exception
> (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/) included in Java SE. This  
> last
> basically allows for programs to subclass Java runtime classes without
> invoking the "viral" nature of the GPL.
>
> Java EE - see the GlassFish project - will also be available under
> GPLv2, as well as its current CDDL licencing.
>
> Exciting times, indeed.
>
> Regards,
> David