Java is Open Source now. (20)

1 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-13 14:52 ID:OW+LsJPl

http://news.lycos.com/dynamic/stories/S/SUN_JAVA_OPEN_SOURCE?SITE=LYCOS&SECTION=TECHNOLOGY&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-13-00-26-47

So, what do you think? Will this help java to get even wider adoption? Will this help projects like Openoffice.org, since now they don't have to worry about beeing dependent on sun now? And how will this affect Java versus .NET?

2 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-13 16:41 ID:Heaven

wasn't it open source before? i remember compiling the 1.5 jdk before there were freebsd binaries available...

3 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-13 16:52 ID:OW+LsJPl

>>2
Not open source as in "You can change and modify it as you like and then redistribute that.".

4 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-13 17:12 ID:1yDgVPIN

Nobody cares about the JDK. The only interesting piece of technology is the dynamic recompiler.

5 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-13 21:05 ID:Je8YUdi1

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing Java applications like Limewire and Azureus in my ubuntu repository. Those that ran to slow in gcj

6 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-11-13 23:39 ID:Heaven

I agree with >>4.

There are a lot of languages that would benefit from a port to a decent VM, but some support from the VM would be helpful.

That security model is nice too.

7 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-14 18:24 ID:Heaven

I don't really give a fuck about Java, but maybe now Linux distros can finally start including it and not force users to go through the most absurd procedures to get it installed.

8 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-14 23:31 ID:iX6Xa0RH

It's not open source yet. They say "early 2007, almost all of it". Close, but no cigar -- yet.

9 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-15 00:02 ID:b3ZFFtIX

>4

I can't help but feel that this would have been a lot more welcome had it happened before so much effort was wasted making a Free workalike for the Java API.

Indeed, I'm of the opinion that the most useful bit is the API: it will be possible to make a Java clone that's perfectly compatible, because it's actually made of Java.

10 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-15 22:13 ID:Heaven

Maybe RMS will shut up about Java now. And I welcome everything that will make RMS shut up about something.

11 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-16 13:28 ID:Heaven

>>10

It's a pretty good strategy, though, isn't it? If you're just annoying enough, peopel will do things for you just to shut you up!

12 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-16 16:57 ID:Yy6hhZb2

>>9
History repeats itself! The Regents removed their ad clause right after GNU had finished cloning most of BSD.

I guess Sun is abandoning their CDDL license? When I saw this, I was expecting Java to be under that. It's cool news, though it would be really awesome if Sun were using a BSD-style license.

13 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-16 22:29 ID:iX6Xa0RH

>>9
Not wasted. GNU Classpath (i.e. the FSF's reimplementation of the Java libs) is under the LGPL, which is entirely compatible with the GPL. No reason why the FSF couldn't just graft Classpath on the side of the Sun JVM, maybe replace the GNU java compiler's interpreter with the official JVM while they're at it. GIJ has been the slowest production-quality JVM for quite a while now, whereas GCJ has produced really really nice native code since five years ago.

14 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-19 22:28 ID:MTZgt4sm

>>13
But also no good reason they should, when the real Java API is going to be GPL/CDDL. Bad reasons might perhaps include sour grapes, and not-invented-here.

Unless there's some compelling reason to choose LGPL over CDDL.

15 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-19 22:50 ID:iX6Xa0RH

>>14
Heh. Given the quality of typical corporate closed-source code I've seen, I think the more likely thing that's going to happen is that Sun grafts Classpath to their javur.

16 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-20 20:33 ID:MTZgt4sm

>>15
The Java API is source-available, just not Open Source.

And, frankly, they'd have a hard job importing all the stuff that Classpath does wrong, or doesn't yet have an implementation for ( http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/htmlout/h-jdk15-classpath.html).

17 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-21 09:22 ID:Heaven

>>16
Guess we're in for some interesting times come early 2007, then.

18 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-21 14:10 ID:iX6Xa0RH

>>16
Dude, your link compares Classpath to JDK1.5. As in what Sun released with Java 5, you know the one with half-assed templates and everything.

GNU's java compiler GCJ doesn't support most of the Java 4 syntax extensions yet, let alone generics. It's a bit misplaced to complain about Classpath's java.lang.Boolean implementing java.lang.Comparable rather than the generic version (which is likely just a sub-interface of Comparable in the first place).

19 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-21 18:49 ID:MTZgt4sm

>>18
So you're saying that Sun is going to turn around and say 'Hey, this new version sucks. We should go back to what we were offering a few years ago; that way we can borrow stuff from Classpath'?

20 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2006-11-21 20:45 ID:TVlzEE3C

>>19
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they'll say "hey, we're tired of maintaining this overgrown heap of barely-past-prototype library code. You seem to have a pretty good set of replacements; how about we slap those together since they're license compatible as of early 2007?". I don't know. It seems pretty certain that the two won't remain separate, and Classpath has pretty good momentum to itself already even if Sun didn't pony up the library source.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.