On Nov 9, 6:49 pm, Kirk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 10, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Greg Reddin wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Kirk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 submit that Apache has been trying to work with Oracle and Sun > > for several years and the process has gained nothing. Maybe it's time > > for a different strategy. > > Trying to work with or just crying foul if ASF doesn't get everything it's > way?
"Trying to work with..." It's been *years* Kirk, and Oracle as a vocal and strong supporter of our position. You seem to be working really hard to spin this as if the ASF is just being impulsive and irrational, but as the VP JCP at the ASF that has been leading this effort, I can guarantee that a lot of sweat, blood and tears went into this battle. When Sun was refusing to give the ASF the TCK, Oracle's firm opinion was that Sun was wrong. Sun was doing it for internal business reasons. Oracle is now doing it for internal business reasons. Now Oracle is wrong. "Internal business reasons" of one company shouldn't dictate the governance of a specification system that purports to be open. That's what this issue really is : Does the JCP EC have any independence from Oracle's business interests? Is the Java ecosystem 'open', by any practical definition of the word? If so, we're staying - we have a strong Java tradition at the ASF, and we want it to continue. If not, then the ASF won't be used to "openwash" the JCP system, which will become little more than a customer advisory board for Oracle. > > >> That said, there are some radical elements in the ASF that seem to want to > >> bash Oracle (Sun) for the sake of bashing them. > > > If you're going to make an accusation like that, you might want to > > back it up with some facts. > > It's my opinion that some people have continued to blog FUD even when clear > statements of intent have been made. I see no rational reason for doing so > unless one was just interested in creating more FUD. Others, not myself, have > called them freetards.. Links to the FUD please? (Otherwise, as I pointed out in my other message, this is just FUD too...) > > > > >> 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. But in reality, the question is answered with OpenJDK licensing. They > >> can fork OpenJDK and they are clear. > > > No they can't. Apache cannot fork OpenJDK and release it under the > > Apache License. If we can't release it under the Apache License, what > > would be the point? > > Well, it would be forked and you could do what you wanted and run a tck and > not face field of use restrictions. That's not really true. Can you point to a *single* instance where that has happened? RedHat's certification of IcedTea doesn't count - they really aren't a fork, just plugged the holes in the original OpenJDK release. How about that new managed runtime system led by Azul? Do they have a TCK yet? Have you read the license for the TCK for OpenJDK? It makes it clear that the tested code must be substantially derived from OpenJDK, which sorta negates your assertion that "you could do what you wanted". 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.
