On Nov 9, 2:12 pm, Kirk <[email protected]> wrote:
[SNIP] > > However, there are still a few outstanding questions and Apache is one of > them. I don't have an answer except to say that it appears that Apache > instead of trying to work with Oracle and engage with them has decided to > threaten to throw the toys out of the pram. I would be a shame if they did > this however, the JCP would go on though it would be weaker without that > strong open voice. That said, there are some radical elements in the ASF that > seem to want to bash Oracle (Sun) for the sake of bashing them. > Kirk, I'm not sure where you get your information. That's nonsense. The ASF has been working with Sun, Oracle and the rest of the JCP for *years* trying to get this issue resolved as patiently and constructively as possible. Don't forget that Oracle was one of our strongest public supporters of our efforts to secure a TCK for Apache Harmony, so it should be clear that what we're trying to get is rational and legitimate. Oracle now has different business motivations behind the switch in their position (as do EC members now...) Remember also that Doug Lea quit the JCP over this issue, and you know that he's not a "radical element". But Oracle has take a position regarding their obligation to provide a TCK license for Java SE that is counter to the their contractual obligations as a signer of the JSPA, and counter to the public promise that Java is an open ecosystem. > My conversation with those in Apache that I know was to ask the question, has > someone broken a legal agreement to which the answer from ASF's POV is yes. Everyone's POV is "yes". In fact, you'll probably hear that as an excuse from EC members who change their position on this issue - that it's really a contractual dispute between the ASF and Oracle and the EC has no standing. > But in reality, the question is answered with OpenJDK licensing. They can > fork OpenJDK and they are clear. Yet the refuse due to some ideological > position that was encouraged by IBM (in their battle against Sun for things > they didn't like). Another point, if someone broke a legal agreement there > are legal remedies. Yet no one at ASF will stand up and say why after I don't > know how many years of whining about the problem, they haven't used any of > those legal remedies. And as much as I may or may not agree with them, the > whining is getting really really old. I won't name names but some have been > posting a lot of FUD about various things that Oracle is planning on doing. > To be fair, I don't completely know what Oracle is planning on doing with > Java but then neither do they and until just recently, their blogs about > Oracle have all been speculation and conjecture and all based on dubious > facts and in some case fiction. Go ahead - name names. Otherwise, what you're posting is just vague FUD too. The fact that one can fork OpenJDK is irrelevant. Apache Harmony started before OpenJDK, and arguably OpenJDK happened as a response to the rapid progress that Apache Harmony was making. One of the core values of Java is that there are multiple implementations of specs. The Java ecosystem is strong because of that basic principle - that users can choose among multiple implementations of the same spec, where the TCK guarantees (to a limit) that those implementations will behave the same way. It's nice that you can choose between multiple implementations of JPA, of the servlet spec, etc - choice is good, as it leads to innovation. Imagine if no one was allowed to implement the EE spec, that we had to use the RI from Sun. Don't you think the Java ecosystem would be poorer because of it? While you may think of the differences between the Apache License and GPLv2 as some sort of "ideological difference", there are legitimate and real-world differences, such as lack of clear patent protection under GPLv2 (did you ever stop for a second and wonder why Sun didn't put OpenJDK under GPLv3 which has modern patent handling? Have you thought about why Google has to claim estoppel vs just pointing to clear patent grants in OpenJDK in their defense of Oracle's patent suit?) as well as the differences in how downstream users can use the software in proprietary products. Do you see Oracle shipping any GPLv2 code? Have you asked Oracle why they will continue with their closed-source distribution of the Java RI and components to customers like IBM, SAP, HP? Have you asked if IBM will be now shipping their JRE with GPLv2 code? Licensing matters. But putting that aside, if we as an ecosystem lose the ability to implement JSRs (where "implement" means create, test with TCK, and distribute under our own terms...) then the whole JCP becomes little more than an Oracle Customer Advisory Panel and I don't think that's a good thing. We already have one major single-company-controlled technical platform in .NET. I don't think the world needs a second one. Lets keep Java open. geir -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
