OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds

Andrew John Hughes gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Mon Jun 1 15:45:55 UTC 2009 

2009/5/31 Kelly O'Hair <Kelly.Ohair at sun.com>:
>
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On May 31, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On May 30, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Dmitri Trembovetski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>> On May 30, 2009, at 7:05 PM, David Herron wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please recall that JDK<n> != OpenJDK<n> though for values of n >= 7
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> difference is very small.  The JDK7 builds have some proprietary bits
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why?  For heaven's sake... why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the corresponding open source parts aren't good enough yet and
>>>>> we don't have enough resources to make them on par with the proprietary bits
>>>>> although this is what we want in the long run.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specific parts that I know of are color management, AA shape rasterizer
>>>>> and font rasterizer.
>>>>
>>>> It's been how many years that you've had to re-write?
>>>
>>>                               ^^^^^^
>>>                               we have
>>>
>>> Seems like I am reading too much "them vs. us" in these emails.
>>
>> Oh, come on.  I don't know where to begin here.
>>
>> 1)  I'm not a "you" :)  I'm really happy OpenJDK exists, but as one of the
>> founder's of Apache Harmony, I think it's good that there are many
>> free/open/libre Java communities.   I'm very interested in floss Java, which
>> is why I pay attention to this community.
>>
>
> I am also really happy all the open source projects exist, and I really
> like working on them. But I keep getting this feeling of doing battle.
> I don't want to do battle, I want to make progress on something.
>

I don't think any of us want to do battle.  However, sometimes events
beyond our control force this upon us.

>> 2) This whole thread is about members of the OpenJDK community complaining
>> about *you* publishing proprietary builds.  They don't seem to feel like a
>> part of "us".
>
> And I don't understand the problem, we have never have published
> 'open' builds.

But until 2007, the source code wasn't open either.

> We could I suppose, and probably should, but we don't.
> To a large degree we didn't think it made any sense because the Distros
> built their own.

The bigger problem I see is not GNU/Linux builds; most of us are
capable of rolling one.  It's Solaris and Windows builds.

> So we let people know when the proprietary builds were
> available because some people wanted them.
> Then other people gets all bent out of shape about it. :^(
>
> It's like trying to get all your relatives to agree, just not possible. :^(
>

The problem I see is confusion; on one hand, Sun are making plenty of
noise about their open source portfolio and the OpenJDK project.  The
other hand is handing out these dirty proprietary builds.

> I'll stick my neck out a little here...
> If I could somehow make some purely OpenJDK7 built zip bundles available,
> with no promises on any test results and with no support.
> Could we start with that? Does that help or make things worse.
> I want to fix this but am only one person, or half a person sometimes,
> so help me out here...
> Can you provide specifics on what you would expect of any openjdk7 builds?
>
> Can we start a separate email thread on this?
>

Nice to see someone wanting to make some actual progress, and thanks
for sticking your neck out :)

> -kto
>
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -kto
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You must understand that "passing the TCK" doesn't necessarily mean
>>>>> "has acceptable performance, fidelity and stability".
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I understand that.  Of course, I'm still in the "getting the TCK"
>>>> phase...
>>>>   http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html
>>>> ;)
>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>  Dmitri
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's valuable to the JDK product cycle for JDK builds to have early
>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>> exposure so people can report bugs etc.  Sun started doing
>>>>>>> very-early-access
>>>>>>> releases with JDK6 and the Peabody Project, and early exposure was a
>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>> of the <project-name-never-to-be-spoken-again> Regressions Contest
>>>>>>> which I
>>>>>>> ran in early 2006. (See my java.net blog posting of Jan 30, 2006)
>>>>>>>  I'm sure
>>>>>>> you can understand the value, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There would also be value to the OpenJDK project for reference
>>>>>>> OpenJDK
>>>>>>> builds to be available.  For example to help those like you who are
>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>> with packaging OpenJDK-derived builds.  Anybody could do those builds
>>>>>>> couldn't they?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it's correct to say Sun is "pushing proprietary
>>>>>>> derivatives as
>>>>>>> early access OpenJDK builds.." is it?  The name JDK7 is distinguished
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> OpenJDK7, right?  Isn't it well known that they are approximately 96%
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same and that there are differences in specific areas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an interested observer and fan of open and even Free(tm) Java, I
>>>>>> need to ask why would you want to have this differentiation?
>>>>>> I can understand the need to provide source and/or binaries to
>>>>>> commercial partners and customers under licenses that aren't the GPL, but
>>>>>> given your right to relicense the whole thing, the same code should be able
>>>>>> to be offered under the GPL...
>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - David Herron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 22:10 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree wholeheartedly, but have to say I long ago ceased to be
>>>>>>>>> surprised by Sun builds beinge proprietary. Sadly the converse is
>>>>>>>>> true; I'd be surprised by a Sun build released under the same terms
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> our IcedTea builds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that is indeed what is sad about this. That it seems OpenJDK
>>>>>>>> builds
>>>>>>>> are actually Sun builds, and by extension such things are
>>>>>>>> proprietary.
>>>>>>>> And that is what I object to. OpenJDK builds should be just that,
>>>>>>>> OpenJDK builds distributed under the (GPL) terms everybody in our
>>>>>>>> community adheres to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a project wants to publish "early access" builds then they really
>>>>>>>> should if they feel people would like to play with the bits. But
>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>> builds should follow the standard OpenJDK project rules
>>>>>>>> (http://openjdk.java.net/legal/) that everybody else also uses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Going to Sun legal and requesting alternative proprietary terms and
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> publishing the code and binaries under non-free software licenses is
>>>>>>>> just bad for creating a community. It is bad enough that the current
>>>>>>>> SCA
>>>>>>>> rules around OpenJDK assign all rights to one commercial party, Sun.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> projects then abusing those rights by pushing proprietary
>>>>>>>> derivatives as
>>>>>>>> early access OpenJDK project builds undermines the whole community
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> equals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are right that we have IcedTea to fix that. If you get your
>>>>>>>> packages
>>>>>>>> through IcedTea (derivatives) you are guaranteed that it truly is
>>>>>>>> Free
>>>>>>>> Software. But wouldn't it be better if we could say that about
>>>>>>>> OpenJDK
>>>>>>>> itself? Wouldn't that make the community stronger?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8

More information about the discuss mailing list