OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds

Frans Thamura frans at meruvian.org
Mon Jun 1 15:47:10 UTC 2009 

let;s make a team that test the openjdk :)

F


On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Andrew John Hughes
<gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 
-- 
Frans Thamura
Meruvian. Java and Enterprise OSS

Mobile: +62 855 7888 699
Blog & Profile: http://frans.thamura.info

We provide services to migrate your apps to Java (web), in amazing
fast and reliable.

More information about the discuss mailing list