Open Source Java?

The_Nerd · 2006-05-16 20:21:57

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21562 … ource-java

Looks like Sun might be releasing Java under an open license. This is good news for everyone who loves Java! Including the guys who write that Jacman frontend i'm sure.

Gullible Jones · 2006-05-16 20:28:38

Hopefully some slimming down will occur...

test1000 · 2006-05-16 21:07:13

haha

kill · 2006-05-16 21:14:49

Um... Java has been avaliable under an open source licence for some time now... You can get the EE, ME, SE along with the full JDK and JRE plus a few other things here.

pressh · 2006-05-16 21:27:59

kill wrote:

Um... Java has been avaliable under an open source licence for some time now... You can get the EE, ME, SE along with the full JDK and JRE plus a few other things here.

This is not what I would call an open source license...
I assume they will be releasing java under another license as the community source license ?

arooaroo · 2006-05-16 21:50:33

Indeed, having access to the source code does not equal open source. We've heard a lot in the past from Sun, especially from Gosling himself saying that Java is "open enough", meaning that people can look at the code, create a patch to fix a bug, and submit that patch to Sun. Sun may or may not include that patch, and of course, you are NOT allowed to redistribute any modified code.

I wrote an article about this for OSNews last year called The Java open source debate if you're interested.

pressh · 2006-05-16 22:44:37

arooaroo wrote:

I wrote an article about this for OSNews last year called The Java open source debate if you're interested.

w00t. Great article!

kill · 2006-05-16 22:50:08

pressh wrote:

This is not what I would call an open source license...

arooaroo wrote:

having access to the source code does not equal open source.

Just because you don't like how it is licensed doesn't mean it isn't open source. As restricted as it is you can go download it, make any changes you want, build and use it. It may not give the same privileges as other licenses but that doesn't mean that the source isn't open and available.

I'm not saying that the current licensing model is good. I would like to see Sun use a less restrictive license myself. However, that the situation isn't that the source is closed and you can only get closed binaries like many people make it out to be. The source is avaliable people can look at it and modify it all they want.

arooaroo · 2006-05-16 22:57:59

kill wrote:

pressh wrote:
This is not what I would call an open source license...
arooaroo wrote:
having access to the source code does not equal open source.
Just because you don't like how it is licensed doesn't mean it isn't open source. As restricted as it is you can go download it, make any changes you want, build and use it. It may not give the same privileges as other licenses but that doesn't mean that the source isn't open and available.

Okay, point taken, who's to decide what's Open and what's not. Well, I think it's fair to say that if a license is OSI approved, then it's Open in the normal sense - i.e., there is a certain level of freedom with the source. Obivously, there are dozens of licenses on their, each with their own issues, but there are some generic points. Generally, an open license will be one that allows modification and distribution of a derived work.

Sun have their own OSI approved licenses (think OpenOffice) so they understand what it's all about. If they want a restrictive license, that's fine. My objection is that they have historically been trying to pretend their their current Java licenses are almost OSS, when they are no where near.

So, we're not debating that they've made the code available, but that's not what OSS means.

NecroRomancist · 2006-05-17 03:29:13

With the recent progress on GNU's classpath will Linux users need and want Sun's JDK..Agreed it still has a long way to go but with yesterday's release i believe things are shaping up..
And for the JVM we have kaffe http://www.kaffe.org
Does anyone know how gcj is on gcc 4.1?

ScriptDevil · 2006-05-17 04:13:19

one thing is java is a lang. that caused a phenomenal change in programming.
Still there is stuff like java is slower.that will be rectified, by our dear OpenSource kith and kin

user · 2006-05-17 04:53:05

NecroRomancist wrote:

With the recent progress on GNU's classpath will Linux users need and want Sun's JDK..Agreed it still has a long way to go but with yesterday's release i believe things are shaping up..
And for the JVM we have kaffe http://www.kaffe.org
Does anyone know how gcj is on gcc 4.1?

Hasn't kaffe merged with gcj?
I have installed gcj-4.2 but hadn't used it. Basically it works with little different command line options.

> gcj --version
gcj (GCC) 4.2.0 20060513 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>

I use jdk1.6.0

> java -version
java version "1.6.0-beta2"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0-beta2-b84)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.6.0-beta2-b84, mixed mode, sharing)
>

BTW, 0.91 is there.
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/

JGC · 2006-05-17 07:19:25

NecroRomancist wrote:

With the recent progress on GNU's classpath will Linux users need and want Sun's JDK..Agreed it still has a long way to go but with yesterday's release i believe things are shaping up..
And for the JVM we have kaffe http://www.kaffe.org
Does anyone know how gcj is on gcc 4.1?

I think gcj and kaffe are the way to go. We've been busy building OpenOffice on linuxtag with gcj-4.0, but it didn't work out so good. Once we have j2se compatibility wrappers for gcj, openoffice can build out of the box using gcj. During our journey I had to patch out several things that were buggy in gcj 4.0.x, these are fixed in 4.1.

arooaroo · 2006-05-17 09:04:20

JGC wrote:

NecroRomancist wrote:
With the recent progress on GNU's classpath will Linux users need and want Sun's JDK..Agreed it still has a long way to go but with yesterday's release i believe things are shaping up..
And for the JVM we have kaffe http://www.kaffe.org
Does anyone know how gcj is on gcc 4.1?
I think gcj and kaffe are the way to go. We've been busy building OpenOffice on linuxtag with gcj-4.0, but it didn't work out so good. Once we have j2se compatibility wrappers for gcj, openoffice can build out of the box using gcj. During our journey I had to patch out several things that were buggy in gcj 4.0.x, these are fixed in 4.1.

These implementations will continue to exist even if and when Sun opens up Java. Think of how Apache have commenced on Harmony so that they can get an Apache compliant J2SE platform.

I still think the OSS implementations are still a way off. Java's performance reputation is hardly superb, but Sun's JVM has gone a long way. The OSS equivs have a lot of catching up to do.

NecroRomancist · 2006-05-18 04:05:34

still think the OSS implementations are still a way off. Java's performance reputation is hardly superb, but Sun's JVM has gone a long way

The JVM on the next version of java seems really faster at least from what i've read online.I've gotta try it out
But nevertheless i still prefer gcj's approach

arooaroo · 2006-05-18 09:05:59

The Java team have a large set of performance and quality metrics to measure the changes for each Java release. Although this information isn't shared, basically they can not release a new version without making significant performance improvements.

So yeah, you will notice 1.6 (Mustang) being a lot more responsive. I've found Swing apps to be much better because of it.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-05-16 20:21:57

Open Source Java?

#2 2006-05-16 20:28:38

Re: Open Source Java?

#3 2006-05-16 21:07:13

Re: Open Source Java?

#4 2006-05-16 21:14:49

Re: Open Source Java?

#5 2006-05-16 21:27:59

Re: Open Source Java?

#6 2006-05-16 21:50:33

Re: Open Source Java?

#7 2006-05-16 22:44:37

Re: Open Source Java?

#8 2006-05-16 22:50:08

Re: Open Source Java?

#9 2006-05-16 22:57:59

Re: Open Source Java?

#10 2006-05-17 03:29:13

Re: Open Source Java?

#11 2006-05-17 04:13:19

Re: Open Source Java?

#12 2006-05-17 04:53:05

Re: Open Source Java?

#13 2006-05-17 07:19:25

Re: Open Source Java?

#14 2006-05-17 09:04:20

Re: Open Source Java?

#15 2006-05-18 04:05:34

Re: Open Source Java?

#16 2006-05-18 09:05:59

Re: Open Source Java?

Board footer