OpenJDK governing board, constitution

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Jan 17, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Hi Geir,
>
> On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 06:40 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>> That is a very good point. Thanks for bringing that up. Currently we
>>> act
>>> as if the JCP has some kind of status that restricts certain kinds  
>>> of
>>> modifications to public APIs.
>>
>> Yes, the JCP has *exactly* that status - public APIs must comply with
>> the Java SE specification as produced by the expert group, or else  
>> the
>> software is not Java (or, in deference to Sun's ownership of the Java
>> trademark, "Java compatible").  I think this reliable consistency is
>> one of the great things about Java The Ecosystem (as well as Java the
>> Platform).
>
> Sure, consistency and having unambiguous, strong standards are great  
> for
> everybody. No argument there. But if the rules around (producing)  
> those
> standards are counter to the spirit of free software then it takes  
> away
> from the user instead of adding value. We have to strive for public,
> open free specifications with testsuites that are free for everybody  
> to
> use to verify any implementation's claim of compatibility with such
> standards. I am not convinced the current state of the JCP encourages
> that though.

What do you think we've been fighting for at the ASF for the last 8  
years, and specifically, the last 2 for the JCK?  The ASF put it's  
money where it's mouth was, and engaged directly, worked hard, and  
produced tangible changes in the JCP.


> If through OpenJDK we can improve the process of producing
> specs, the reference implementation and free test suites, then I am  
> all
> for it.

The irony is that things have gotten worse since OpenJDK was created -  
not because of OpenJDK, but the timing was coincidental with the ASF  
shining a light on the last dark crevice of JCP licensing, namely  
Sun's approach to Java SE TCK licensing.

You might argue that it's better, because you can get the TCK for use  
in OpenJDK and derivatives, but those license terms - namely for use  
only in code that is substantially derived from the OpenJDK code base  
and must be under the GPL 2.0 - are counter to the spirit and letter  
of open source/free software, and also counter to the letter and  
spirit of the JSPA, the rules that govern the JCP.

Hilarious, in a bitter and dark kind of way.


>
>
>>> But this has been kind of a problem since
>>> access to JSRs and JCKs is not guaranteed to be free of restrictions
>>> that are incompatible with our way of working in a public and open
>>> free software project.
>>
>> It turns out that's the least of your problems.
>
> Yes, the biggest problem was getting a full free reference platform  
> for
> the Java platform. Although we worked very hard on that through the
> various efforts around GNU Classpath and friends, gcj, kaffe, and
> finally with harmony, it cannot be denied that Sun's liberation of
> almost all of their core platform implementation code base helped
> enormously. And doing it in a way that united their effort with almost
> all of the existing libre-java community can only be given the highest
> praise.

Yeah.  Something like that.

Another view is that they masterfully split the free/libre/open java  
community, exploiting long-standing license fault-lines, in order to  
counteract the threat that Harmony represented - a quality, performant  
open source implementation with an *open, free community* under a  
permissive license.

>
>
> I might be highly critical about some of the processes, the non-open
> specs, the TCK being non-free and only available under a NDA forcing
> people to work in secret cut of from the rest of the community (but
> again high praise for Sun coming up with something that at least lets
> people produce Free Software and doesn't get in the way of releasing  
> the
> results under the GPL) and the non-transparent trademark rules.

And you're missing the biggest problem here - I'm not sure if its  
because you don't understand, or are choosing to ignore it.  You  
certainly are aware of it.


> But I do
> realize that the biggest and most important hurdle has been taken now.
> That we are slowly but surely creating a community that produces a  
> fully
> free Java platform together, even if some of the steps forward might  
> be
> still tricky.
>
>>  As you know, the ASF
>> is engaged in what is now a multi-year battle to get the Java SE 5  
>> TCK
>> under terms compatible with being able to distribute the resulting
>> tested binary under an open source license.
>
> Yes, we started that process 12 years ago, and even before we started
> Harmony we tried to unite the free java groups and get access to old
> TCKs. http://lwn.net/Articles/184967/ One of the reasons that I was  
> one
> of the Harmony founders, which I and lots of others hoped would be the
> ultimate unification of all the java-libre efforts that would not only
> bring us a solid, full, free java implementation shared by lots of
> groups, but also would give us the political cloud with the JCP
> community. We all know how that ended. As I said before I think your
> actions were not helpful.
> http://gnu.wildebeest.org/diary/2007/04/21/openjck/

I know.  And I think you have no clear idea what's going on.    You  
don't seem to understand that it wasn't "my" actions, but the actions  
of the Apache Software Foundation.

Your engagement in the first few weeks on the Harmony lists was nice -  
we really tried to get you engaged in the project so we could work  
together with GNU Classpath.

But it didn't work out, mainly because you never could consider  
yourself producing software under the AL because of your views towards  
"software hoarding", ironic in retrospect given your willingness to  
provide IP to Sun, who not only sells it to "software hoarders" but  
who is openly using it's IP to limit the progress of open source  
project.  And if you're not providing code, you're providing "air- 
cover" by letting them point to openjdk as a model open free software  
community.

>
>
> I hope we can move past that sad history though and focus on the  
> future.
> Now that we have a full free Java compatible platform for Java SE 6  
> lets
> focus on making the processes for getting the same for Java SE 7 and  
> not
> just having free code, but also open processes (including open and  
> free
> specifications and finally a free TCK!) instead of harping on the past
> failures.

The problem with this perspective is that it's not a historical  
problem, something from a past when perspectives and social mores were  
different. It's the present - it's still going on.

We're not fighting the "last war" here - Apache Harmony is *still*  
unable to get a license for the TCK for Java SE.  Sun is genuinely  
scared of what would happen if there was an actual free-as-in-freedom  
implementation of Java out there under a community they didn't have a  
stranglehold over.

So whatever problems you see has historical actually exists, and is  
still very real and harmful for another group of people with the same  
interests and aspirations as you, who managed to actually bring an  
independent implementation together to the point of being ready for  
compatibility testing.

>
>
>> Java will never really be free until we get past all of this.  Please
>> inform RMS.
>
> You seem hung up on the term Java(TM).

It is why we're here.  it's what the J in OpenJDK stands for.

> Yes, it would be great if we had
> a more open, transparent and Free Software compatible way of handling
> the trademark issue.

I don't care about the trademark issue.  It's orthogonal to open  
source - and in my experience, Sun has actually been very reasonable  
w/ trademark licensing wrt open source projects that are compatible  
with the spec they implement.  We've had no problem of the years at  
the ASF.

> But don't confuse naming with code. The code is all
> out there, under free software licenses. And even some binaries  
> produced
> have been certified as passing the JCK - in a way that is less from
> ideal seeing the TCK itself isn't Free Software, but the resulting  
> code
> is fully free software. I do talk with RMS from time to time and he
> knows my position, goals and the work that still has to be done.

Yeah, I think you just don't understand what's going on.  Cheers back.

geir



>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>