When the Sun goes down - what happens to the OpenJDK?

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 08:10 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> But besides naming I agree that we should make sure to get a some  
>>> free
>>> compatibility kit. The problem here is the JCP which grants Sun[/
>>> Oracle]
>>> special rights with respect to the platform TCKs. Hopefully a JSR  
>>> for
>>> Java7 isn't accepted without making sure that the platform TCK is  
>>> also
>>> available as free software.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean.   The JSPA grants Sun an effective veto
>> regarding "platform JSRs" (EE, SE, ME), but they have no special
>> rights wrt the platform TCKs.  The platform TCKs are just TCKs, and
>> the licensing of them must conform to the JSPA.  (see "fight, Apache
>> and Sun, Java SE TCK" for more information :)
>
> It probably depends on how you interpret JSPA 5.F.IV. which seems to
> explicitly exclude Sun from all such legal obligations except for
> offering a TCK separately (but under its own terms) from any RI.

Right - I don't know the history, but I assume that Sun wanted to  
protect it's existing agreements that didn't conform, and any  
subsequent renewals.

It's hard to imagine that anyone involved with the exception of Sun's  
lawyers thought it should allow Sun to do whatever it wants forever.

> But I
> agree that the JSPA is a twisted document that can be interpreted in
> multiple ways. At least to this reader it seems to grant a lot of
> privileges to Sun above and beyond any other participant. The current
> setup of the JCP at least seems not ideal for free software community
> participation.

We are 100% in agreement.  The current model is awful - it's a "hub  
and spoke" network of 1-1 contracts between members and Sun, which  
prevents any party other than a court in California from having any  
standing or ability to mediate a dispute, as the ASF's battle for an  
unencumbered Java SE TCK license has shown.

>
>
>> I'm all for TCKs being open source or "free" software, but I'm not
>> convinced that it's necessary.  I can live with non-free/non-open  
>> TCKs.
>
> We clearly differ on this point. I think it is necessary and that
> "compatibility through NDAs" is just nuts and hurts the community and
> users at large.

I didn't say I like NDAs.  They should and must be abolished.  But I  
can certainly accept getting software that's non-free or non-open to  
use for testing, as long as it doesn't require an NDA  nor encumber  
the tested work with terms or obligations for the user beyond the  
license that I choose to use for my own work.

I'm a Mac OS X user that has an iPhone, remember? :)

geir