From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri May 1 15:11:09 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 08:11:09 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 57 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <49FB110D.3020903@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/ffd09e767dfa The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 57 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b57.html -Xiomara From Paul.Hohensee at Sun.COM Thu May 7 23:43:54 2009 From: Paul.Hohensee at Sun.COM (Paul Hohensee) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 19:43:54 -0400 Subject: New Project Proposal: Hotspot Express In-Reply-To: <1241736876.29199.19.camel@ghostbox.sfbay.sun.com> References: <1241736876.29199.19.camel@ghostbox.sfbay.sun.com> Message-ID: <4A03723A.5030608@sun.com> Vote: yes Erik Trimble wrote: > In accordance with the OpenJDK guidelines for projects [1], I hereby > propose the OpenJDK Project "HotSpot Express". > > This Project will be used for the development of stable versions of the > Java HotSpot Virtual Machine. In the HotSpot Express release model, new > versions of HotSpot are drawn from its leading development line > (currently in OpenJDK 7) and prepared for delivery as product-quality > JVMs. > > I propose this project be sponsored by the HotSpot Group [2] and that I > be the initial moderator of the project. > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/ > [2] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/hotspot/ > > > > From John.Coomes at sun.com Fri May 8 00:01:34 2009 From: John.Coomes at sun.com (John Coomes) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:01:34 -0700 Subject: New Project Proposal: Hotspot Express In-Reply-To: <4A03723A.5030608@sun.com> References: <1241736876.29199.19.camel@ghostbox.sfbay.sun.com> <4A03723A.5030608@sun.com> Message-ID: <18947.30302.933384.438520@sun.com> Paul Hohensee (Paul.Hohensee at Sun.COM) wrote: > Vote: yes Erik is supposed to send a call for votes to the sponsoring group's alias (hotspot-dev in this case), and the voting should take place there. So no more votes here, please. -John > Erik Trimble wrote: > > In accordance with the OpenJDK guidelines for projects [1], I hereby > > propose the OpenJDK Project "HotSpot Express". > > > > This Project will be used for the development of stable versions of the > > Java HotSpot Virtual Machine. In the HotSpot Express release model, new > > versions of HotSpot are drawn from its leading development line > > (currently in OpenJDK 7) and prepared for delivery as product-quality > > JVMs. > > > > I propose this project be sponsored by the HotSpot Group [2] and that I > > be the initial moderator of the project. > > > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/ > > [2] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/hotspot/ > > > > > > > > From Karen.Kinnear at Sun.COM Fri May 8 01:26:02 2009 From: Karen.Kinnear at Sun.COM (Karen Kinnear) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 21:26:02 -0400 Subject: New Project Proposal: Hotspot Express In-Reply-To: <1241736876.29199.19.camel@ghostbox.sfbay.sun.com> References: <1241736876.29199.19.camel@ghostbox.sfbay.sun.com> Message-ID: <6187275A-5A12-42B8-883D-D0391C694568@sun.com> Vote: yes Karen On May 7, 2009, at 6:54 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > In accordance with the OpenJDK guidelines for projects [1], I hereby > propose the OpenJDK Project "HotSpot Express". > > This Project will be used for the development of stable versions of > the > Java HotSpot Virtual Machine. In the HotSpot Express release model, > new > versions of HotSpot are drawn from its leading development line > (currently in OpenJDK 7) and prepared for delivery as product-quality > JVMs. > > I propose this project be sponsored by the HotSpot Group [2] and > that I > be the initial moderator of the project. > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/ > [2] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/hotspot/ > > > > -- > Erik Trimble > Java System Support > Mailstop: usca22-123 > Phone: x17195 > Santa Clara, CA > Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) > From geir at pobox.com Fri May 8 16:48:35 2009 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:48:35 -0400 Subject: OpenJDK Interim Governance Board status In-Reply-To: <20090508164345.9F2565E2F@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20090508164345.9F2565E2F@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <1FC62662-3573-495C-B94D-151682E440D1@pobox.com> I still volunteer. geir On May 8, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote: > Per the OpenJDK Charter [1], the Interim Governance Board [2] was > formally dissolved yesterday. > > Our main priorities over the last two years have been to grow the > OpenJDK Community from the founding core of Sun's JDK engineers to > a more diverse set of developers, and to enable those developers to > participate directly in the JDK development process. > > We've made good progress on those goals, particularly in this past > year. Key developers from the major Linux distributions are working > ever more closely with Sun engineers on the open-source JDK 6 effort, > and the JDK 7 project is approaching its third milestone with several > major features from non-Sun contributors in the pipeline. > > Creating a formal governance structure has, at least for those of us > at Sun, been less important than growing the Community. Having laid > a firm foundation for that growth, however, it is now time to turn > back to the governance task. > > I am therefore pleased to announce that Sun has agreed to extend the > term of the present Board for a further year, and that we expect to > fill the two empty seats within the next four weeks. > > - Mark > > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/charter > [2] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb From david.gilbert at object-refinery.com Fri May 8 17:32:52 2009 From: david.gilbert at object-refinery.com (David Gilbert) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 19:32:52 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK Interim Governance Board status In-Reply-To: <1FC62662-3573-495C-B94D-151682E440D1@pobox.com> References: <20090508164345.9F2565E2F@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <1FC62662-3573-495C-B94D-151682E440D1@pobox.com> Message-ID: I still volunteer also. Dave Gilbert On May 8, 2009, at 6:48 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > I still volunteer. > > geir > > On May 8, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote: > >> Per the OpenJDK Charter [1], the Interim Governance Board [2] was >> formally dissolved yesterday. >> >> Our main priorities over the last two years have been to grow the >> OpenJDK Community from the founding core of Sun's JDK engineers to >> a more diverse set of developers, and to enable those developers to >> participate directly in the JDK development process. >> >> We've made good progress on those goals, particularly in this past >> year. Key developers from the major Linux distributions are working >> ever more closely with Sun engineers on the open-source JDK 6 effort, >> and the JDK 7 project is approaching its third milestone with several >> major features from non-Sun contributors in the pipeline. >> >> Creating a formal governance structure has, at least for those of us >> at Sun, been less important than growing the Community. Having laid >> a firm foundation for that growth, however, it is now time to turn >> back to the governance task. >> >> I am therefore pleased to announce that Sun has agreed to extend the >> term of the present Board for a further year, and that we expect to >> fill the two empty seats within the next four weeks. >> >> - Mark >> >> >> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/charter >> [2] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb > > From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Sat May 9 02:09:27 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 19:09:27 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/59b497130f82 The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 58 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b58.html -Xiomara From martinrb at google.com Sat May 9 15:46:42 2009 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 08:46:42 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10905090846t241b389dp4d4320fc4d144407@mail.gmail.com> The master jdk7 forest does not yet have the jdk7-b58 tag added. Could you please add it (but not to tip; there have been changes since)? On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 19:09, Xiomara Jayasena wrote: > > The OpenJDK source is available at: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/59b497130f82 > > The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 58 are > available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source > Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) > > Summary of changes: > http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b58.html > > -Xiomara > From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Mon May 11 16:39:22 2009 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:39:22 +0100 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10905090846t241b389dp4d4320fc4d144407@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10905090846t241b389dp4d4320fc4d144407@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e0905110939n74342295vb9cd7122af95408a@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/9 Martin Buchholz : > The master jdk7 forest does not yet have the jdk7-b58 tag added. > Could you please add it (but not to tip; there have been changes > since)? > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 19:09, Xiomara Jayasena wrote: >> >> The OpenJDK source is available at: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/59b497130f82 >> >> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 58 are >> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >> >> Summary of changes: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b58.html >> >> -Xiomara >> > Still no tag, which means we can't sync the IcedTea forest with the new build drop. Can someone please fix this? -- 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 From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Mon May 11 16:50:50 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:50:50 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10905090846t241b389dp4d4320fc4d144407@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10905090846t241b389dp4d4320fc4d144407@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A08576A.7050607@sun.com> Martin Buchholz wrote: > The master jdk7 forest does not yet have the jdk7-b58 tag added. > Right, it will be added later today. I am training another team member to cover for me as I will be out of the office for a few days. We tried tagging jdk7 last week and we ran into a permission problem. > Could you please add it (but not to tip; there have been changes > since)? > We marked the changesets that we will be tagging already. As to the statement: > there have been changes > since Really? I have not seen any changes go in. -Xiomara > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 19:09, Xiomara Jayasena wrote: > >> The OpenJDK source is available at: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/59b497130f82 >> >> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 58 are >> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >> >> Summary of changes: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b58.html >> >> -Xiomara >> >> From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Mon May 11 16:51:07 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:51:07 +0200 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4A08576A.7050607@sun.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10905090846t241b389dp4d4320fc4d144407@mail.gmail.com> <4A08576A.7050607@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A08577B.9020104@sun.com> Xiomara Jayasena wrote: > Right, it will be added later today. I am training another team member > to cover for me as I will be out of the office for a few days. We tried > tagging jdk7 last week and we ran into a permission problem. >From my limited experience debugging tagging permission problems, I'd suggest making sure that the [ui] section of the .hgrc file is set correctly. cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Mon May 11 17:26:07 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:26:07 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4A08577B.9020104@sun.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10905090846t241b389dp4d4320fc4d144407@mail.gmail.com> <4A08576A.7050607@sun.com> <4A08577B.9020104@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A085FAF.6040405@sun.com> Dalibor Topic wrote: > Xiomara Jayasena wrote: > >> Right, it will be added later today. I am training another team member >> to cover for me as I will be out of the office for a few days. We tried >> tagging jdk7 last week and we ran into a permission problem. >> > > >From my limited experience debugging tagging permission problems, > I'd suggest making sure that the [ui] section of the .hgrc file > is set correctly. > To clarify -- the training happened last week. There isn't anything to debug. We will do the tagging later today. Cheers, -Xiomara > cheers, > dalibor topic > From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Mon May 11 17:46:22 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:46:22 +0200 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4A085FAF.6040405@sun.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10905090846t241b389dp4d4320fc4d144407@mail.gmail.com> <4A08576A.7050607@sun.com> <4A08577B.9020104@sun.com> <4A085FAF.6040405@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A08646E.60101@sun.com> Xiomara Jayasena wrote: > > > Dalibor Topic wrote: >> Xiomara Jayasena wrote: >> >>> Right, it will be added later today. I am training another team member >>> to cover for me as I will be out of the office for a few days. We tried >>> tagging jdk7 last week and we ran into a permission problem. >>> >> >> >From my limited experience debugging tagging permission problems, >> I'd suggest making sure that the [ui] section of the .hgrc file >> is set correctly. >> > > To clarify -- the training happened last week. There isn't anything to > debug. > > We will do the tagging later today. Great - thank you Xiomara! cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Mon May 11 21:30:25 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:30:25 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0905110939n74342295vb9cd7122af95408a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10905090846t241b389dp4d4320fc4d144407@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0905110939n74342295vb9cd7122af95408a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A0898F1.5040701@sun.com> Hi Andrew, Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 19:09, Xiomara Jayasena wrote: >> >>> The OpenJDK source is available at: >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/59b497130f82 >>> >>> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 58 are >>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >>> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >>> >>> Summary of changes: >>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b58.html >>> >>> -Xiomara >>> >>> > > Still no tag, which means we can't sync the IcedTea forest with the > new build drop. > The tagging is complete now. Regards, -Xiomara From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Tue May 12 22:18:45 2009 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 23:18:45 +0100 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e0905121518v2238c3ean804b658d52201752@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/9 Xiomara Jayasena : > > The OpenJDK source is available at: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/59b497130f82 > > The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 58 are > available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source > Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) > > Summary of changes: > http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b58.html > > -Xiomara > b58 also contains a fix for http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6565364 but this appears to have been rolled in with http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6529590 so that the bug has not been updated and the ID is not included in the changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/corba/rev/e149090eb21a -- 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 From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Wed May 13 00:11:29 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:11:29 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0905121518v2238c3ean804b658d52201752@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> <17c6771e0905121518v2238c3ean804b658d52201752@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A0A1031.7030105@sun.com> Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2009/5/9 Xiomara Jayasena : > >> The OpenJDK source is available at: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/59b497130f82 >> >> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 58 are >> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >> >> Summary of changes: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b58.html >> >> -Xiomara >> >> > > b58 also contains a fix for > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6565364 but this > appears to have been rolled in with > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6529590 so that the > bug has not been updated and the ID is not included in the changeset: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/corba/rev/e149090eb21a > Thanks. I'll ask the responsible gatekeeper to update the bug. -Xiomara From Tim.Bell at Sun.COM Wed May 13 23:56:46 2009 From: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM (Tim Bell) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:56:46 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0905121518v2238c3ean804b658d52201752@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> <17c6771e0905121518v2238c3ean804b658d52201752@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A0B5E3E.6020808@sun.com> Andrew John Hughes wrote: > b58 also contains a fix for > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6565364 but this > appears to have been rolled in with > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6529590 so that the > bug has not been updated and the ID is not included in the changeset: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/corba/rev/e149090eb21a Good catch, thank you. These changes came forward en-masse from OpenJDK6 and I missed 6565364. I updated 6565364 a few minutes ago and marked it fix-delivered in OpenJDK7 b58. I can't retroactively fix the changeset comment - sorry about that. Tim From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Thu May 14 00:02:15 2009 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 01:02:15 +0100 Subject: JDK 7 build 58 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4A0B5E3E.6020808@sun.com> References: <4A04E5D7.3090000@sun.com> <17c6771e0905121518v2238c3ean804b658d52201752@mail.gmail.com> <4A0B5E3E.6020808@sun.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e0905131702n3c1280dbjadfadb580671381f@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/14 Tim Bell : > Andrew John Hughes wrote: > >> b58 also contains a fix for >> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6565364 but this >> appears to have been rolled in with >> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6529590 so that the >> bug has not been updated and the ID is not included in the changeset: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/corba/rev/e149090eb21a > > Good catch, thank you. > The IcedTea build process does it again! :) (We've been maintaining the patch locally so when it appeared upstream, a conflict arose in applying our patch) > These changes came forward en-masse from OpenJDK6 and I missed 6565364. ?I > updated 6565364 a few minutes ago and marked it fix-delivered in OpenJDK7 > b58. > Thanks. > I can't retroactively fix the changeset comment - sorry about that. > No problem, I only mentioned that because I guess it's why the bug wasn't updated. > Tim > > Cheers, -- 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 From esmond.pitt at bigpond.com Thu May 14 23:47:31 2009 From: esmond.pitt at bigpond.com (Esmond Pitt FACS) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:47:31 +1000 Subject: setTrafficClass on server socket; IP_TOS replacement on Windows Message-ID: <20090514234607.BTUZ19926.nschwotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@toshibakx1wgjb> Alan 1. I've just come across a situation where a user needs to call setTrafficClass on a server socket, so that a certain TOS value will be present in the ACK packet when TCP accepts a connection. This would occur automatically because all socket flags are inherited during construction of the native socket on the backlog queue, then Java turns off the timeout setting when it constructs a Socket around it during accept() (which is another historical curiousity AFAICS). I can't find my link to the NIO2 documentation but is there way to do that in NIO2? Generally speaking it should be possible to (pre)-set every socket option on a server socket. The user situation itself is more or less nonsense, a brain-dead router configuration that rejects ACKs without a certain non-zero TOS setting, so writing real applications behind it is more or less impossible, especially since our friends in Seattle don't support IP_TOS anyway, but regardless of that the principle still applies. 2. While on that topic, is there support for whatever Microsoft's replacement API for IP_TOS in NIO2? EJP From martinrb at google.com Fri May 15 02:59:25 2009 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:59:25 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 59 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4A0CB3A1.6040508@Sun.COM> References: <4A0CB3A1.6040508@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10905141959g27128bdat17b4b12053aefb3c@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:13, Vassili Igouchkine wrote: > Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) The URL http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 still has b58 as of this writing. Martin From Alan.Bateman at Sun.COM Fri May 15 08:21:29 2009 From: Alan.Bateman at Sun.COM (Alan Bateman) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:21:29 +0100 Subject: setTrafficClass on server socket; IP_TOS replacement on Windows In-Reply-To: <20090514234607.BTUZ19926.nschwotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@toshibakx1wgjb> References: <20090514234607.BTUZ19926.nschwotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com@toshibakx1wgjb> Message-ID: <4A0D2609.4070808@sun.com> Esmond Pitt FACS wrote: > Alan > > 1. I've just come across a situation where a user needs to call > setTrafficClass on a server socket, so that a certain TOS value will be > present in the ACK packet when TCP accepts a connection. This would occur > automatically because all socket flags are inherited during construction of > the native socket on the backlog queue, then Java turns off the timeout > setting when it constructs a Socket around it during accept() (which is > another historical curiousity AFAICS). > > I can't find my link to the NIO2 documentation but is there way to do that > in NIO2? Generally speaking it should be possible to (pre)-set every socket > option on a server socket. > > The user situation itself is more or less nonsense, a brain-dead router > configuration that rejects ACKs without a certain non-zero TOS setting, so > writing real applications behind it is more or less impossible, especially > since our friends in Seattle don't support IP_TOS anyway, but regardless of > that the principle still applies. > > 2. While on that topic, is there support for whatever Microsoft's > replacement API for IP_TOS in NIO2? > > EJP > Esmond - you can re-send this to net-dev? -Alan. From martinrb at google.com Sat May 16 07:13:07 2009 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 00:13:07 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 59 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10905141959g27128bdat17b4b12053aefb3c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A0CB3A1.6040508@Sun.COM> <1ccfd1c10905141959g27128bdat17b4b12053aefb3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10905160013i5a552fb6m2ac57550d23bc12d@mail.gmail.com> Now the b59 bits are available, but there is a new problem: $ java -jar jdk-7-ea-plug-b59-linux-x64-14_may_2009.jar Invalid or corrupt jarfile jdk-7-ea-plug-b59-linux-x64-14_may_2009.jar Martin On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 19:59, Martin Buchholz wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:13, Vassili Igouchkine > wrote: >> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) > > The URL http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 still has b58 as of this writing. > > Martin > From martinrb at google.com Sun May 17 18:33:12 2009 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 11:33:12 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 59 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10905160013i5a552fb6m2ac57550d23bc12d@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A0CB3A1.6040508@Sun.COM> <1ccfd1c10905141959g27128bdat17b4b12053aefb3c@mail.gmail.com> <1ccfd1c10905160013i5a552fb6m2ac57550d23bc12d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10905171133y2ce0245cpb117e44f399eb6c9@mail.gmail.com> I'm not sure whether the problem was at my end or your end, but I retried the download and everything is now fine. Martin On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 00:13, Martin Buchholz wrote: > Now the b59 bits are available, but there is a new problem: > > ?$ java -jar jdk-7-ea-plug-b59-linux-x64-14_may_2009.jar > Invalid or corrupt jarfile jdk-7-ea-plug-b59-linux-x64-14_may_2009.jar > > Martin > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 19:59, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:13, Vassili Igouchkine >> wrote: >>> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >> >> The URL http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 still has b58 as of this writing. >> >> Martin >> > From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Wed May 27 17:17:14 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:17:14 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Forum: Core Libraries Round Table Message-ID: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> Hi core libraries developers, I met Alan Bateman last evening, and we thought that we should have another OpenJDK Core Libraries Forum this week, so (drumroll) it's time again on Friday, for the OpenJDK Forum Date/Time: Friday May 29th, 8 AM Pacific, 1600 GMT, 5 PM Germany Subject: Core libraries round table Call Host: Dalibor Topic Expected Participants: * members of discuss at openjdk and core-libs-dev at openjdk mailing lists interested in hearing what everyone else is working on in the core libraries area. Synopsis: The agenda would be just go around the table and get everyone to speak on what they are working on in the core libraries area in OpenJDK in light of the finished M3 and the upcoming M4, and the JavaOne conference just around the corner next week. We will then switch to open discussion mode to hear people's questions, concerns, and suggestions on the subject matter. The call will be recorded, and the recording will be made available after the call - in a free format, of course! Dial in numbers: Passcode: 5817876 Speed dial extension for developers inside Sun: x44414 Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0463 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4868 1-800-249-288 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0970 1-800-249-288 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1970 1-800-249-288 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7739 1-800-249-288 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5249 1-800-249-288 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8125 1-800-249-288 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-86-506 0800-005-029 BELGIUM 32-1-150-0314 0800-4-8680 BRAZIL 0800-7610674 CHILE 1230-020-2867 CHINA* 86-400-810-4766 10800-712-1433 10800-120-1433 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156430 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-54 800-700-173 DENMARK 45-7014-0280 8088-6132 ESTONIA 800-011-1089 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-146 0-800-1-10100 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-146 0-800-1-10100 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-81 080-563-9647 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-81 080-563-9647 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-74-20 080-563-9647 GERMANY 49-69-2222-2566 0800-000-3441 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0683 00800-12-6973 HONG KONG 852-2286-5731 800-930-705 HUNGARY 06-800-18013 INDIA 000-800-852-1266 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3787 IRELAND 353-1-247-5253 1800-932-145 ISRAEL 1-80-9214916 ITALY 39-02-3600-3642 800-986-570 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4769 0034-800-400828 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5189 0034-800-400828 LATVIA 8000-3025 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1360 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-2812 MEXICO 001-866-627-0574 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8533 0800-020-1392 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4769 0800-449-823 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-59 800-15414 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072129 PERU 0800-53733 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3715 POLAND 00-800-1212021 PORTUGAL 8008-14061 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9683011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9228 800-120-4662 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-21 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80416 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1081 00798-14800-6860 SPAIN 34-91-414-62-98 800-099-810 SWEDEN 46-8-505-78-524 0200-890-106 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-4389 0800-001-523 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7377 00801-137-766 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65656 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9021 0808-238-6025 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3221 0808-238-6025 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2121 0808-238-6025 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7075-3246 0808-238-6025 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1421 0808-238-6025 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3415 USA 1-203-418-3122 866-692-3163 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3733 cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From gbenson at redhat.com Thu May 28 08:34:11 2009 From: gbenson at redhat.com (Gary Benson) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:34:11 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK Forum: Core Libraries Round Table In-Reply-To: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> References: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> Message-ID: <20090528083410.GA3215@redhat.com> Dalibor Topic wrote: > Date/Time: Friday May 29th, 8 AM Pacific, 1600 GMT, 5 PM Germany Is that 1600 GMT or 1600 BST (ie 1500 GMT)? Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/ From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Thu May 28 08:57:11 2009 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:57:11 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK Forum: Core Libraries Round Table In-Reply-To: <20090528083410.GA3215@redhat.com> References: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> <20090528083410.GA3215@redhat.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e0905280157q39131f98tde0334d4ad8b18aa@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/28 Gary Benson : > Dalibor Topic wrote: >> Date/Time: Friday May 29th, 8 AM Pacific, 1600 GMT, 5 PM Germany > > Is that 1600 GMT or 1600 BST (ie 1500 GMT)? > > Cheers, > Gary > > -- > http://gbenson.net/ > Dalibor, it's looks like you copied and pasted the wrong line again... ;) If it's 5pm in Germany, only 1600 BST makes any sense. -- 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 From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Thu May 28 09:59:11 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 02:59:11 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Forum: Core Libraries Round Table In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0905280157q39131f98tde0334d4ad8b18aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> <20090528083410.GA3215@redhat.com> <17c6771e0905280157q39131f98tde0334d4ad8b18aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1E606F.60500@sun.com> Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2009/5/28 Gary Benson : >> Dalibor Topic wrote: >>> Date/Time: Friday May 29th, 8 AM Pacific, 1600 GMT, 5 PM Germany >> Is that 1600 GMT or 1600 BST (ie 1500 GMT)? >> >> Cheers, >> Gary >> >> -- >> http://gbenson.net/ >> > > Dalibor, it's looks like you copied and pasted the wrong line again... ;) > > If it's 5pm in Germany, only 1600 BST makes any sense. Right, it should be http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2009&month=5&day=29&hour=3&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=136&p3=37 cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Thu May 28 10:04:53 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 03:04:53 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Forum: Core Libraries Round Table In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0905280157q39131f98tde0334d4ad8b18aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> <20090528083410.GA3215@redhat.com> <17c6771e0905280157q39131f98tde0334d4ad8b18aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A1E61C5.2000608@sun.com> Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2009/5/28 Gary Benson : >> Dalibor Topic wrote: >>> Date/Time: Friday May 29th, 8 AM Pacific, 1600 GMT, 5 PM Germany >> Is that 1600 GMT or 1600 BST (ie 1500 GMT)? >> >> Cheers, >> Gary >> >> -- >> http://gbenson.net/ >> > > Dalibor, it's looks like you copied and pasted the wrong line again... ;) > > If it's 5pm in Germany, only 1600 BST makes any sense. Thanks for catching it, it's 1600 BST according to http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2009&month=5&day=29&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=136&p3=37 cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Thu May 28 10:09:39 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 03:09:39 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Forum: Core Libraries Round Table In-Reply-To: <4A1E606F.60500@sun.com> References: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> <20090528083410.GA3215@redhat.com> <17c6771e0905280157q39131f98tde0334d4ad8b18aa@mail.gmail.com> <4A1E606F.60500@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A1E62E3.3020801@sun.com> Dalibor Topic wrote: > Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> 2009/5/28 Gary Benson : >>> Dalibor Topic wrote: >>>> Date/Time: Friday May 29th, 8 AM Pacific, 1600 GMT, 5 PM Germany >>> Is that 1600 GMT or 1600 BST (ie 1500 GMT)? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Gary >>> >>> -- >>> http://gbenson.net/ >>> >> Dalibor, it's looks like you copied and pasted the wrong line again... ;) >> >> If it's 5pm in Germany, only 1600 BST makes any sense. > > Right, it should be > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2009&month=5&day=29&hour=3&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=136&p3=37 Heh, almost - it's actually http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2009&month=5&day=29&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=136&p3=37 (clearly I should just let a script do this rather then posting after midnight myself) cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From brian.de.alwis at usask.ca Fri May 29 00:10:37 2009 From: brian.de.alwis at usask.ca (Brian de Alwis) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:10:37 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Survey on DVCS usage and experience References: <75599A84-8A53-4DA4-A022-1BEF4EEDA943@usask.ca> Message-ID: Hello everybody. I'm part of a team conducting a survey to understand the perceived benefits and challenges of using a decentralized or distributed version control systems (DVCS) in software development. With OpenJDK having recently chosen to switch to Mercurial, I hoped that any developers who've used a DVCS (and who are over 18 years old) might like to participate in our survey and share your experiences. Details on partcipating are below. Thanks for your time! Brian. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- An increasing number of software projects have or are considering switching their code repositories to a decentralized or distributed VCS (DVCS). There are many such DVCS tools, including git, bzr, mercurial, monotone, or bitkeeper. We are conducting a survey to assess the perceived benefits and challenges of using a DVCS. We would ask that any individuals who use or are comfortable using a DVCS for managing the artifacts for a project to please consider completing the survey. The survey has several open-ended questions, and may take up to 20 minutes to complete. The data collected from this study will be used in articles for publication in journals and conference proceedings. The results of this study will provide additional knowledge and guidance for projects considering moving to using a DVCS. This is an anonymous survey. Any personal information divulged in answering a question will be kept strictly confidential. The survey is at: http://www.cs.usask.ca/~bsd178/research/dvcs-survey/ Please feel free to redistribute this to other interested groups. If you would like more detail about the survey, or information not included here, please contact us. Brian de Alwis Department of Computer Science University of Saskatchewan brian.de.alwis at usask.ca This research has the ethical approval of the Research Ethics Office at the University of Saskatchewan. If you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research subject, please contact the office at 306-966-2084. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Brian de Alwis | HCI Lab | University of Saskatchewan From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Fri May 29 05:27:21 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 07:27:21 +0200 Subject: Update: OpenJDK Forum: Core Libraries Round Table In-Reply-To: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> References: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A1F7239.1000700@Sun.COM> Since conference calls may be a somewhat new experience to some of us, here are a couple ground rules: * Please identify yourself by name and location when speaking. At least in theory, we could have more then one Dalibor on the call, for example, and for those of us not familiar with each Dalibor's voice, having a way to pick them apart is useful. * Please address individuals by name when speaking. That helps keep the discussion flowing, without causing confusion who a particular question, remark or idea is addressed to. * Please speak clearly and avoid side conversations and background noise. We'll use the #openjdk IRC channel on irc.oftc.net for side conversations. If you are not familiar with IRC clients, you can run the corresponding web start application at http://openjdk.java.net/irc/ . * Keeping the noise down When you're not speaking, please mute your own line by pressing *6 on your telephone keypad. To unmute press *6 again. * On Sun campus in Santa Clara? Please join Dalibor and Alan in conference room "Abba Zabba" in building 22. See & hear you soon, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland B?mer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From mark at klomp.org Fri May 29 16:56:38 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:56:38 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds Message-ID: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi, Since we are all in frantic-release mode just before JavaOne I wanted to double check some of the new features against other builds. I was somewhat surprised to find that various projects only promote and/or publish proprietary builds. The jdk7 binaries published on the list, but also nio2 builds, sctp builds (these were the two I was interested in, there might be others), are published under proprietary terms and not just under the GPL. The terms are particularly anti-social since they explicitly forbid sharing the binaries with others, learning what the corresponding source code is, modifying or creating any derivative works, and agreeing that Sun will be "irreparably harmed" if you don't keep everything you learn from those binaries confidential. Could we please have OpenJDK projects only publish artifacts under the terms listed at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ Those terms even allows publishing binaries that contain some of the proprietary blobs as long as the rest is published under the GPL, thanks to the assembly exception, if that really is necessary (and it really shouldn't be necessary anymore since people have been publishing full GPLed builds for almost 2 years now). Thanks, Mark From geir at pobox.com Fri May 29 17:06:31 2009 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:06:31 -0400 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <765D6157-0EB5-4A53-8215-705F7454CF6F@pobox.com> On May 29, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > Since we are all in frantic-release mode just before JavaOne I > wanted to > double check some of the new features against other builds. I was > somewhat surprised to find that various projects only promote and/or > publish proprietary builds. The jdk7 binaries published on the list, > but > also nio2 builds, sctp builds (these were the two I was interested in, > there might be others), are published under proprietary terms and not > just under the GPL. > > > The terms are particularly anti-social since they explicitly forbid > sharing the binaries with others, learning what the corresponding > source > code is, modifying or creating any derivative works, and agreeing that > Sun will be "irreparably harmed" if you don't keep everything you > learn > from those binaries confidential. Imagine! There's a downside for giving sun complete copyright (via joint assignment)! Whoda thought! geir > > > Could we please have OpenJDK projects only publish artifacts under the > terms listed at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ > > Those terms even allows publishing binaries that contain some of the > proprietary blobs as long as the rest is published under the GPL, > thanks > to the assembly exception, if that really is necessary (and it really > shouldn't be necessary anymore since people have been publishing full > GPLed builds for almost 2 years now). > > Thanks, > > Mark > From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Fri May 29 17:07:46 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:07:46 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Forum: Core Libraries Round Table In-Reply-To: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> References: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A201662.1090002@sun.com> Dalibor Topic wrote: > Hi core libraries developers, > > I met Alan Bateman last evening, and we thought that we > should have another OpenJDK Core Libraries Forum this week, > so (drumroll) it's time again on Friday, for the > > OpenJDK Forum > > Date/Time: Friday May 29th, 8 AM Pacific, 1600 GMT, 5 PM Germany > > Subject: Core libraries round table Hi everyone, a recording of the call in the Ogg Vorbis format is available at http://mediacast.sun.com/users/robilad/media/openjdk-forum-3.ogg/details Other formats are coming later tonight. cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From mark at klomp.org Fri May 29 17:56:47 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:56:47 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <765D6157-0EB5-4A53-8215-705F7454CF6F@pobox.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <765D6157-0EB5-4A53-8215-705F7454CF6F@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1243619807.4800.324.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi Geir, On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 13:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > On May 29, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > The terms are particularly anti-social since they explicitly forbid > > sharing the binaries with others, learning what the corresponding > > source code is, modifying or creating any derivative works, and > > agreeing that Sun will be "irreparably harmed" if you don't keep > > everything you learn from those binaries confidential. > > Imagine! There's a downside for giving sun complete copyright (via > joint assignment)! Whoda thought! Of course. That is a reason to think long and hard before signing the SCA in its current form, if you wish to do that. But that is a different issue. What Sun does with its own internal proprietary forks is their business. This is about OpenJDK project themselves publishing and promoting proprietary builds, which IMHO is not done. > > Could we please have OpenJDK projects only publish artifacts under the > > terms listed at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ > > > > Those terms even allows publishing binaries that contain some of the > > proprietary blobs as long as the rest is published under the GPL, > > thanks to the assembly exception, if that really is necessary (and > > it really shouldn't be necessary anymore since people have been > > publishing full GPLed builds for almost 2 years now). Cheers, Mark From david at davidherron.com Fri May 29 18:20:30 2009 From: david at davidherron.com (David Herron) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:20:30 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <1243619807.4800.324.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <765D6157-0EB5-4A53-8215-705F7454CF6F@pobox.com> <1243619807.4800.324.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <44ca3ad70905291120r6afd9a11i6e51ce02e9020fd7@mail.gmail.com> Unless something has changed since I left the OpenJDK project isn't publishing binary builds. The situation when I was still there was JDK builds were being published but not OpenJDK builds. That was a conscious decision to not do so. Mebbe the JDK7 build announcements shouldn't be published on OpenJDK mailing lists for the same reason as I stopped (last fall) sending DLJ announcements to OpenJDK mailing lists? - David Herron http://davidherron.com On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Geir, > > On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 13:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > On May 29, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > The terms are particularly anti-social since they explicitly forbid > > > sharing the binaries with others, learning what the corresponding > > > source code is, modifying or creating any derivative works, and > > > agreeing that Sun will be "irreparably harmed" if you don't keep > > > everything you learn from those binaries confidential. > > > > Imagine! There's a downside for giving sun complete copyright (via > > joint assignment)! Whoda thought! > > Of course. That is a reason to think long and hard before signing the > SCA in its current form, if you wish to do that. But that is a different > issue. What Sun does with its own internal proprietary forks is their > business. This is about OpenJDK project themselves publishing and > promoting proprietary builds, which IMHO is not done. > > > > Could we please have OpenJDK projects only publish artifacts under the > > > terms listed at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ > > > > > > Those terms even allows publishing binaries that contain some of the > > > proprietary blobs as long as the rest is published under the GPL, > > > thanks to the assembly exception, if that really is necessary (and > > > it really shouldn't be necessary anymore since people have been > > > publishing full GPLed builds for almost 2 years now). > > Cheers, > > Mark > > From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Fri May 29 18:49:54 2009 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:49:54 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <44ca3ad70905291120r6afd9a11i6e51ce02e9020fd7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <765D6157-0EB5-4A53-8215-705F7454CF6F@pobox.com> <1243619807.4800.324.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905291120r6afd9a11i6e51ce02e9020fd7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A202E52.4040709@sun.com> David Herron wrote: > Unless something has changed since I left the OpenJDK project isn't > publishing binary builds. My understanding too. OpenJDK projects are source only. > > The situation when I was still there was JDK builds were being published but > not OpenJDK builds. Correct as far as I know too. > > That was a conscious decision to not do so. Yup. > > Mebbe the JDK7 build announcements shouldn't be published on OpenJDK mailing > lists for the same reason as I stopped (last fall) sending DLJ announcements > to OpenJDK mailing lists? I tend to agree. -kto > > - David Herron > http://davidherron.com > > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> Hi Geir, >> >> On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 13:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> On May 29, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: >>>> The terms are particularly anti-social since they explicitly forbid >>>> sharing the binaries with others, learning what the corresponding >>>> source code is, modifying or creating any derivative works, and >>>> agreeing that Sun will be "irreparably harmed" if you don't keep >>>> everything you learn from those binaries confidential. >>> Imagine! There's a downside for giving sun complete copyright (via >>> joint assignment)! Whoda thought! >> Of course. That is a reason to think long and hard before signing the >> SCA in its current form, if you wish to do that. But that is a different >> issue. What Sun does with its own internal proprietary forks is their >> business. This is about OpenJDK project themselves publishing and >> promoting proprietary builds, which IMHO is not done. >> >>>> Could we please have OpenJDK projects only publish artifacts under the >>>> terms listed at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ >>>> >>>> Those terms even allows publishing binaries that contain some of the >>>> proprietary blobs as long as the rest is published under the GPL, >>>> thanks to the assembly exception, if that really is necessary (and >>>> it really shouldn't be necessary anymore since people have been >>>> publishing full GPLed builds for almost 2 years now). >> Cheers, >> >> Mark >> >> From mark at klomp.org Fri May 29 18:52:10 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:52:10 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <44ca3ad70905291120r6afd9a11i6e51ce02e9020fd7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <765D6157-0EB5-4A53-8215-705F7454CF6F@pobox.com> <1243619807.4800.324.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905291120r6afd9a11i6e51ce02e9020fd7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1243623130.4800.331.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi David, On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 11:20 -0700, David Herron wrote: > Unless something has changed since I left the OpenJDK project isn't > publishing binary builds. Various groups now have links to binary build downloads on their project page. These builds are however not published under the normal terms that the OpenJDK project uses (GPL plus various extra permissions), but under terms that prevent all the normal activities that Free Software licenses grant. > Mebbe the JDK7 build announcements shouldn't be published on OpenJDK I might not have been clear. I would not object to having builds to compare against. In this case I was happy to see binary builds since I was seeing some failures in the nio2 jtreg results and wanted to make sure it wasn't local issues (admittedly my local builds are slightly hacked up). The problem is just that they aren't published under acceptable terms. That was probably an oversight. I assume they should have been published under the normal GPL terms. Cheers, Mark From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Fri May 29 21:10:05 2009 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 22:10:05 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> 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. On 29/05/2009, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > Since we are all in frantic-release mode just before JavaOne I wanted to > double check some of the new features against other builds. I was > somewhat surprised to find that various projects only promote and/or > publish proprietary builds. The jdk7 binaries published on the list, but > also nio2 builds, sctp builds (these were the two I was interested in, > there might be others), are published under proprietary terms and not > just under the GPL. > > The terms are particularly anti-social since they explicitly forbid > sharing the binaries with others, learning what the corresponding source > code is, modifying or creating any derivative works, and agreeing that > Sun will be "irreparably harmed" if you don't keep everything you learn > from those binaries confidential. > > Could we please have OpenJDK projects only publish artifacts under the > terms listed at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ > > Those terms even allows publishing binaries that contain some of the > proprietary blobs as long as the rest is published under the GPL, thanks > to the assembly exception, if that really is necessary (and it really > shouldn't be necessary anymore since people have been publishing full > GPLed builds for almost 2 years now). > > Thanks, > > 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 From mark at klomp.org Sat May 30 19:31:38 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 21:31:38 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> 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 From martinrb at google.com Sat May 30 21:41:25 2009 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 14:41:25 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <1243623130.4800.331.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <765D6157-0EB5-4A53-8215-705F7454CF6F@pobox.com> <1243619807.4800.324.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905291120r6afd9a11i6e51ce02e9020fd7@mail.gmail.com> <1243623130.4800.331.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10905301441n323e9a3dg4c5c788a1e7210a3@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:52, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I might not have been clear. I would not object to having builds to > compare against. In this case I was happy to see binary builds since I > was seeing some failures in the nio2 jtreg results and wanted to make > sure it wasn't local issues (admittedly my local builds are slightly > hacked up). The problem is just that they aren't published under > acceptable terms. I would also like to see binaries built from the openjdk sources proper, but Sun is under no obligation to do that, and the proprietary binaries are in any case a valuable service for folks on both sides of the source code freedom ideological divide (including myself), so I would like to see them continue to be announced on openjdk mailing lists. Martin > That was probably an oversight. I assume they should > have been published under the normal GPL terms. > > Cheers, > > Mark > > From david at davidherron.com Sat May 30 23:05:31 2009 From: david at davidherron.com (David Herron) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:05:31 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> Mark, Please recall that JDK != OpenJDK though for values of n >= 7 the difference is very small. The JDK7 builds have some proprietary bits in them. 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 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? - David Herron On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Mark Wielaard 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 > > From geir at pobox.com Sat May 30 23:13:30 2009 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 19:13:30 -0400 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> Hi David, On May 30, 2009, at 7:05 PM, David Herron wrote: > Mark, > > Please recall that JDK != OpenJDK 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? > > > 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 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 > 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 >> >> From Dmitri.Trembovetski at Sun.COM Sat May 30 23:20:21 2009 From: Dmitri.Trembovetski at Sun.COM (Dmitri Trembovetski) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:20:21 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Hi David, > > On May 30, 2009, at 7:05 PM, David Herron wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> Please recall that JDK != OpenJDK 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. You must understand that "passing the TCK" doesn't necessarily mean "has acceptable performance, fidelity and stability". 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 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 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 >>> >>> > From geir at pobox.com Sat May 30 23:38:47 2009 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 19:38:47 -0400 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> Message-ID: 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 != OpenJDK 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? > > > 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 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 >>> 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 >>>> >>>> From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Sun May 31 00:17:40 2009 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 01:17:40 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <17c6771e0905301717x471347b8q5ab4fee15d8bb5c1@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/31 Geir Magnusson Jr. : > > 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 != OpenJDK 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? > >From my perspective at least, if Sun aren't shipping it, they have no motivation to fix it. If they were shipping OpenJDK builds and getting bugs filed against them, then the priority of fixing these issues would be much higher. As is, the next JDK release or previous u bump is always going to take precedence and it will simply never get done. As a first step, it at least needs to be narrowed down to specific issues. Just saying 'it isn't as good' is of no use to anyone wanting to work on this. This same little quote has been thrown about for two years now and nothing has changed much in the last year to suggest we're going to see any progress ever. >> >> >> ?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 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 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 From mark at klomp.org Sun May 31 08:11:32 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 10:11:32 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1243757492.11727.65.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 16:05 -0700, David Herron wrote: > Please recall that JDK != OpenJDK though for values of n >= 7 > the difference is very small. The JDK7 builds have some proprietary > bits in them. Sure, that is why we have the Assembly Exception, and the Designated Exception Modules, in case someone really needs to make such a release. http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ > 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 > 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? Sure. If done under a license that would actually allow sharing of information and help the OpenJDK community and not just Sun. > 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? Yes, and most distros now ship those bits. Maybe we should publicize that better. It is just that some OpenJDK projects suddenly turn into Sun builds for their early access builds that I think is not done. Especially not since the special license on them is much more draconian than most proprietary licenses I have ever seen. It prevents anybody from sharing any information or use them for OpenJDK collaboration (because that would be Confidential Information that would Irreparable Harm Sun if released). Cheers, Mark From mark at klomp.org Sun May 31 08:13:27 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 10:13:27 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <1243757607.11727.68.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi Dmitri, On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 16:20 -0700, Dmitri Trembovetski wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > On May 30, 2009, at 7:05 PM, David Herron wrote: > >> Please recall that JDK != OpenJDK 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. Sure, I might not like that there are still proprietary bits around even though we have free replacements, but I understand that they are still around. That doesn't mean you need to use a different license from the rest of us. http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ clearly spells out the rules. You may ship these proprietary blobs together with the larger GPLed parts thanks to the Assembly Exception. That means you can just ship everything under free terms except for these remaining blobs if you really want to. No need to get some special terms different from the rest of the community. Also I agree with Andrew, if you keep only shipping the proprietary blobs and not the free replacements you will have less incentive to help us all improve the free bits. Lastly this is not really relevant for most of the OpenJDK stack except some parts of the graphics stack, why would the nio2 project for example, ship early access builds under a completely proprietary license? Cheers, Mark From aph at redhat.com Sun May 31 15:25:02 2009 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 16:25:02 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <4A22A14E.9010903@redhat.com> 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 != OpenJDK 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. Understood, but that doesn't apply in all the cases that Mark is talking about, nio2 being a good example. Andrew. From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Sun May 31 17:55:15 2009 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 10:55:15 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <4A22C483.9090500@sun.com> 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 != OpenJDK 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. -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 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 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 >>>>> >>>>> > From geir at pobox.com Sun May 31 18:04:16 2009 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 14:04:16 -0400 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <4A22C483.9090500@sun.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> <4A22C483.9090500@sun.com> Message-ID: <39401705-2ECE-4DAD-9BD1-FB8BBAC5AD90@pobox.com> 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 != OpenJDK 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. 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". 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 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> From frans at meruvian.org Sun May 31 18:14:58 2009 From: frans at meruvian.org (Frans Thamura) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 01:14:58 +0700 Subject: Validate OpenJDK Message-ID: <3a71add70905311114w5b2edfcbo70d6bc35fc45f56a@mail.gmail.com> with the news about Sun put propietary build in OpenJDK i have several question, is the current OpenJDK good product to be use as Java platform anyone validate that the current Sun Java SDK is 100% with OpenJDK, i think we need a team that promote the "difference" but with propietary build, i see a Game here.. i think we must start to create our own SDK :) but how to make sure people dont use the "propietary" -- -- 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. From mark at klomp.org Sun May 31 18:15:15 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 20:15:15 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <4A22C483.9090500@sun.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> <4A22C483.9090500@sun.com> Message-ID: <1243793715.32104.0.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi Kelly, On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 10:55 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > > 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. Don't feed the trolls :) From geir at pobox.com Sun May 31 18:33:13 2009 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 14:33:13 -0400 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <1243793715.32104.0.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> <4A22C483.9090500@sun.com> <1243793715.32104.0.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <4C900A60-6155-4A43-90B6-7EB1BC606207@pobox.com> yeah. Just dismiss us as trolls... geir On May 31, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 10:55 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > Don't feed the trolls :) > From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Sun May 31 18:54:54 2009 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 11:54:54 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <39401705-2ECE-4DAD-9BD1-FB8BBAC5AD90@pobox.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> <4A22C483.9090500@sun.com> <39401705-2ECE-4DAD-9BD1-FB8BBAC5AD90@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4A22D27E.5060003@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 != OpenJDK 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. > 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. 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. 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. :^( 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? -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 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > From david at davidherron.com Sun May 31 19:14:41 2009 From: david at davidherron.com (David Herron) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 12:14:41 -0700 Subject: coffee tasters guild Message-ID: <44ca3ad70905311214j4f758d15k45dd2299b7dcdf0d@mail.gmail.com> Let's restart this as a new thread ... The idea in the back of my mind which I've not made time for would be "The Coffee Tasters Guild". Purpose, group organized OpenJDK builds and test results stashed on a common website. Why that name? If it's organized not as an official OpenJDK project I think it might be a problem to use the OpenJDK trademark. Besides there can never be too many coffee puns when it comes to Java. That's my strawman, - David Herron http://davidherron.com From frans at meruvian.org Sun May 31 19:25:22 2009 From: frans at meruvian.org (Frans Thamura) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 02:25:22 +0700 Subject: coffee tasters guild In-Reply-To: <44ca3ad70905311214j4f758d15k45dd2299b7dcdf0d@mail.gmail.com> References: <44ca3ad70905311214j4f758d15k45dd2299b7dcdf0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3a71add70905311225j3e17321jee3880b66e9a9cec@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:14 AM, David Herron wrote: > Let's restart this as a new thread ... > > The idea in the back of my mind which I've not made time for would be "The > Coffee Tasters Guild". ?Purpose, group organized OpenJDK builds and test > results stashed on a common website. what is the result of this test? we test all the openjdk right? can i know, how to join this project F From david at davidherron.com Sun May 31 19:29:00 2009 From: david at davidherron.com (David Herron) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 12:29:00 -0700 Subject: coffee tasters guild In-Reply-To: <3a71add70905311225j3e17321jee3880b66e9a9cec@mail.gmail.com> References: <44ca3ad70905311214j4f758d15k45dd2299b7dcdf0d@mail.gmail.com> <3a71add70905311225j3e17321jee3880b66e9a9cec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44ca3ad70905311229k671d61efw6fb379275e87e45a@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Frans Thamura wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:14 AM, David Herron > wrote: > > Let's restart this as a new thread ... > > > > The idea in the back of my mind which I've not made time for would be > "The > > Coffee Tasters Guild". Purpose, group organized OpenJDK builds and test > > results stashed on a common website. > > what is the result of this test? > > > we test all the openjdk right? > > can i know, how to join this project > > F > Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't making an announcement of an existing project, just describing one I'd had in mind. BTW it doesn't have to be complicated. It could just be a common web site where several people have ssh access to upload stuff. - David Herron http://davidherron.com From mark at klomp.org Sun May 31 19:52:21 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 21:52:21 +0200 Subject: Early access builds Message-ID: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi Kelly, > 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? Thanks and good idea. So, lets back up a little more, so we really start this thread from scratch and make sure we are on the same page. You said earlier... > And I don't understand the problem, we have never have published > 'open' builds. 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. 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. :^( And to be clear I am the "other people" getting all bent out of shape here :) So, why is that? And what is wrong with these "closed" builds that do get published? The OpenJDK project has rules, under http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ on how to produce fully open and partially closed derivatives. If you want a fully open build, you get the sources under the GPL, some additional permissions under the Classpath Exception to combine with other free software stuff and off you go. This is basically what IcedTea and the various GNU/Linux distributions do now. Follow the letter and spirit of the GPL and everybody is happy. If you want to produce a (partially) closed build you are also allowed to do that. For historical reasons there are sadly some proprietary binary blobs that cannot be distributed under free terms, but you do get permission to distribute these together with the rest (provided you follow the terms of the GPL for that of course) and get an additional special Assembly Exception to combine with these Designated Exception Modules to form a larger work for which the GPL only applies to the free and open parts. Now, various OpenJDK projects want to do "early access" releases. Sometimes even for stuff that isn't in the main repo yet. Because they like working with the larger community and provide them with easily runnable bits (these are so early they wouldn't normally be packaged by any distribution). So they publish these build downloads on their OpenJDK project pages and/or post to the mailinglist inviting people to work together and test the bits in progress. Now here is were it becomes awkward. These early access builds aren't published as open builds, but they are also not published as (partially) closed builds according to the OpenJDK legal rules. No, they are published under a completely different very draconian proprietary license that says you may not you even try to study how this works, try to figure out what the underlying source code is, use it for any purpose except for telling Sun, and only Sun! what might be wrong with these builds, and if you don't treat anything you might learn from these builds as proprietary confidential information not to be shared with anybody you will cause Sun irreparable damage for which recovery of money damages would be inadequate... Hohum. That isn't very nice. Sidenote (and the reason I send the original email): It certainly made me pause and decide not to use the nio2 early access builds to try and figure out what was wrong with the nio2 tests included in IcedTea or give any feedback. Damn, I thought, if this is how it has to be, then no cooperation! Luckily, Alan Bateman stands way above all this little bickering, so he contacted me, we went over all the failures I saw in my build, and he personally explained each and every one away. Go Alan! I am under the impression this is an old relic from before the OpenJDK project, the adoption of the GPL and before the goal was to come together with the community at large to create a completely free and open java implementation. I wouldn't have balked (so much) if I had found the binaries produced as partial closed binaries. I do understand not everybody is convinced yet the free replacements are better, or at least as good as the old proprietary plugs. So if an graphics oriented OpenJDK project published partially closed builds as early access, well, I don't like it, but I can see why. But non-graphics related OpenJDK projects not publishing their early access builds under the fully free terms is rather quaint. And having them publish such builds under terms that basically forbid any cooperation between community members because they are totally Sun proprietary and confidential is completely nuts. IMHO of course. So, I think that what we really need is rules for OpenJDK projects that want to publish Early Access build artifacts. IMHO if they do, they should do that in accordance to the rules that everybody needs to follow, which are spelled out at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ That is the only fair thing to do. Cheers, Mark From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Sun May 31 21:00:32 2009 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 14:00:32 -0700 Subject: coffee tasters guild In-Reply-To: <44ca3ad70905311229k671d61efw6fb379275e87e45a@mail.gmail.com> References: <44ca3ad70905311214j4f758d15k45dd2299b7dcdf0d@mail.gmail.com> <3a71add70905311225j3e17321jee3880b66e9a9cec@mail.gmail.com> <44ca3ad70905311229k671d61efw6fb379275e87e45a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A22EFF0.3000904@sun.com> David Herron wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Frans Thamura wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:14 AM, David Herron >> wrote: >>> Let's restart this as a new thread ... >>> >>> The idea in the back of my mind which I've not made time for would be >> "The >>> Coffee Tasters Guild". Purpose, group organized OpenJDK builds and test >>> results stashed on a common website. >> what is the result of this test? >> >> >> we test all the openjdk right? >> >> can i know, how to join this project >> >> F >> > > Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't making an announcement of an existing > project, just describing one I'd had in mind. > > BTW it doesn't have to be complicated. It could just be a common web site > where several people have ssh access to upload stuff. Anyone in the people list at http://db.openjdk.java.net/people can start doing this anytime using the current cr.openjdk.java.net site. You can sftp into it as described in http://cr.openjdk.java.net/, create a 'stuff' directory to hold things and then you can then scp -r directory_of_stuff/ cr.openjdk.java.net:stuff/ (or rsync) Then anyone can access it via http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~USER/stuff where USER is the openjdk user name that published the stuff. Maybe not a permanent answer, but we can start with something like that. Only open stuff please, none of that poisonous proprietary stuff... ;^) But you need to be in the contributor list to populate anything here (e.g. listed in http://db.openjdk.java.net/people) -kto > > - David Herron > http://davidherron.com From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Sun May 31 21:20:01 2009 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 14:20:01 -0700 Subject: Early access builds In-Reply-To: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Kelly, [snip] > Sidenote (and the reason I send the original email): It certainly made > me pause and decide not to use the nio2 early access builds to try and > figure out what was wrong with the nio2 tests included in IcedTea or > give any feedback. Damn, I thought, if this is how it has to be, then no > cooperation! Luckily, Alan Bateman stands way above all this little > bickering, so he contacted me, we went over all the failures I saw in my > build, and he personally explained each and every one away. Go Alan! Yes, Go Alan. ;^) [snip] I understand. > > So, I think that what we really need is rules for OpenJDK projects that > want to publish Early Access build artifacts. IMHO if they do, they > should do that in accordance to the rules that everybody needs to > follow, which are spelled out at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ > That is the only fair thing to do. I have no disagreement here. I think we can fix this. Probably about time anyway. And to be clear, in my opinion, any 'open' build published should be one built without the binary plugs, I would very much like for them to die, be buried, and be forgotten. Effectively what I'm thinking is a kind of cleanroom build of an openjdk forest, using Fedora 9 X86 32bit, and OpenSolaris X86 32bit to start. I'll create a simple self-extracting tarball installer (no rpm/deb/ips packages), and publish them in a public openjdk area. No testing to start, but adding testing with published results could be done by just about anyone. If I do this right, we can in theory point at any openjdk project forest and provide the same build service for any project. Granted, I think anyone in the community could probably do the same thing, and I'm happy to step aside for someone else to do it, whatever, but let's get something done here. Assuming I'm not fired or sent to Iraq for sticking my neck out on this, does this sound like a reasonable start? -kto