Hi, it seems my earlier email to this group didn't go through. I
work with Tom in the jdk-distros project. Generally, I'm involved
with the community collaboration around Java SE.
I have been subscribed to this list for 3+ weeks, listening. I
suppose I could have posted a note here, but as a group we (as Tom
said) were trying to be very quiet about this project until we could
announce it at Java ONE. That meant not sending a note to a public
mailing list like this. You know how marketing people to launch
surprise announcements ... so that's what's happened.
I want to respond to a couple of the points you make here.
First, we're trying as well as we can to approach this differently
than you say. Instead of forcing to you guys "do it our way or else"
we're trying our best to follow a collaborative path. Tom and I have
been working with several Ubuntu and Debian developers to create the
packaging for the sun-java packages that are now in the non-free
repository. The important thing is they made the packaging, they
made the decisions of where to place things, etc. Over the long term
we intend for the jdk-distros.dev.java.net site to be a repository of
scripts and documentation covering the integration of Java with a
wide range of operating systems.
We don't have the bandwidth to understand the specificities of each
OS distribution. Instead, the intent is for members of each
distribution to package Sun's Java bits in whatever way makes sense
for that distribution. Sun provides the raw bits, and the creators
of each OS distribution package those raw bits in a way that makes
sense for that distribution. This is all spelled out at jdk-
distros.dev.java.net.
That we "already provide RPM's" is a symptom of our old mindset. To
get to a world where "apt-get install jroller" will work smoothly we
have to change our mindset and interact with you guys in a different
way.
The DLJ is specifically open in regard to an OS distributor bundling
other Java implementations -- such as Kaffe/GCJ/etc ... but what it
doesn't allow, nor does it make sense technically, is for mingling of
code between Java implementations. NOTE: The DLJ was written before
the Jonathan/Rich announcement the other day, and without knowing
that's what they would say. Over time it's very likely our stance
vis.a.vis the Kaffe/GCJ/Classpath stuff will change. But it's too
early at this moment to say anything. As they said, it's not a
matter of 'when' but 'how' and we have to spend some time scratching
our heads over the several alternatives.
Some of your comments are about the non-free nature of Sun's Java.
That's why the packages are in the non-free repository. If you don't
want to pollute your system with non-free code, then don't do it.
We really like that Debian has a place for non-free code. But, of
course, now our focus is going to take a different direction to Sun's
java joining the ranks of free implementations.
I agree with what you say about the JCP. I used to work on IETF
standards committees and those groups are completely in the open and
it didn't hurt anybody. I don't understand why the JCP has a default
of working behind closed doors.
- David Herron
On May 18, 2006, at 4:59 AM, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Marble a écrit :
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
[...]
Thanks to inform me ;-) It seems no one from Debian think I'm enough
important to tell it to me ;-)
*mea culpa*
You are not alone here. There are Debian Developers that could
inform...
This is my fault... Your name *did* come up in conversation. AFAIK
this is the first time Sun has tried to collaborate with a completely
open community while at the same time keeping a significant
change in direction quiet for a planned press event at JavaOne.
Of course I don't like the way it happened. It hurts. But well,
it'd be
better to inform *the* *list*, not only me.
I don't think I could have understood what I do now about
the Debian community if I hadn't attended Debconf....
And most of the 3 days I was there were spent on technical
issues around the packaging. It was a mistake for me not to
invite all the parties involved in Java with Debian to
participate in this first step.
I can tell you quite sincerely that I was taken by surprise
by Rich Green's comments yesterday. So now we have this second
step -- how to open source Java -- which will require participation
from all who want to set it free. This step is much, much
more complex and important than the first and I truly hope
I can count on your input.
I have problems to trust the way Sun is doing it. I understand it like
"we'll deliver a real java implementation to those poor little free
guys". I'd prefer a less commercial approach and a word from Sun to
support free implementations (GNU Classpath and friends): promise
not to
sue them, help with the tck and so.
Here, I feel like contrasted: of course it'd be good for some of our
users (those who are not conscerned by free -as in speach-
software) but
what about my friends from the free J implementation?
I saw a sun-jdk-source package or something... that means all those
who
install this package and look at the sources will not be able to help
GNU Classpath. In my POV, one of the important thing we can do in
Debian
is helping the GNU Classpath project and friends.
Those of us within Sun who have
passion for Free software need to join with those outside of Sun
such as yourself to help show the way to the rather significant
number of people who will resist this change.
I can understand the priorities at Sun and I can understand it's
not the
same as in free software. I can understand it can be hard to work
at Sun
with the changing politics about free software. It's the same at
Ubuntu,
once they promote gcj, after they provide non-free jdk...
Je vous prie d'accepter mes excuses pour cet oubli maladroit,
Je ne pense pas que ce soit un oubli.
I don't think you forgot. I think this is the way you communicate (I
mean at Sun, not you personnally). I think it's the same with the JCP:
"open" but discussions are completely closed and cannot go outside the
people involved. This is not the way we wanna work in here. We talk
about policy and fundamental changes publicly. I can understand your
concerns. Your marketing problems, competitors, etc.
Things I don't understand is why you want to include the jre/jdk in
Debian? You already provide rpm's and you are not free yet and we
can't
build jre/jdk from sources. Also, you only provide your software on
two
or three platforms where Debian provides 15! Why do you want to
provide
packages for Gentoo, will jre/jdk be built from sources on Gentoo?
I feel like you want Sun everywhere without understanding the
specificities of the different distros... or without even discussing
(well, maybe you did but I did not see no mail about that).
Anyway, it seems to me there will be a culture clash and it could be
very interresting. I don't have that mutch time to help at the moment.
Maybe it'll be easier in some weeks.
Cheers,
- --
.''`.
: :' :rnaud
`. `'
`-
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEbGGY4vzFZu62tMIRAkuFAKChPjI6jKia9DtatyDDPB7sS7TC1ACgs3LU
rUYyUH9EAneVjTzX6oOLho0=
=+iMj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
