From neugens at limasoftware.net Tue Feb 1 00:13:40 2011 From: neugens at limasoftware.net (Mario Torre) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:13:40 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <1296504247.25442.6.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <1296504247.25442.6.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1296519220.11733.55.camel@galactica> Il giorno lun, 31/01/2011 alle 21.04 +0100, Mark Wielaard ha scritto: > > ie: to replace Dalvik on Android devices ? > > There will be a talk about that topic next weekend at the > Fosdem Free Java devroom event: > http://wiki.debian.org/Java/DevJam/2011/Fosdem/JavaSpeakers#IcedRobot This is a bit more tricky than it seems. Android is not Java and is not a Java version. It's a full stack including a Linux Kernel, OS services, and some libraries that are a bit alien to standard Linux distributions. Theoretically though, it is "simply" a matter of port the existing java libraries (that means, the native code behind them, which is not much really) and write an interpreter for Dalvik that runs in the JDK, like jruby or jython or friends do. This is what we're trying to do for IcedRobot. In the end, the goal is to run Android with/on the OpenJDK code base, under Linux (and QNX) as a start. If you're interested in this, feel free to contact us at any time, we will be happy to get help :) Cheers, Mario -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/ From stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com Tue Feb 1 11:01:23 2011 From: stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com (stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:01:23 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> > > > > Is it possible to distribute a device with an embedded royalty free OpenJDK JRE ? > > You should consult your lawyer. Having said that, I am not a > lawyer but I can't seen anything in the licence that would stop you. > The only thing that gives you permission is the licence, > which you should read to determine if you agree to its terms > and if it gives you the permissions you need. OK. So it seems not so simple as I imagine. Because when lawyers are there, it is not simple ! :P The different ways of your answers seem to show that this kind of use is not clear. Perhaps, it depends of the context and the use ? St?phane From aph at redhat.com Tue Feb 1 11:30:25 2011 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:30:25 +0000 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> Message-ID: <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> On 02/01/2011 11:01 AM, stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com wrote: > >>> Is it possible to distribute a device with an embedded royalty free OpenJDK JRE ? >> >> You should consult your lawyer. Having said that, I am not a >> lawyer but I can't seen anything in the licence that would stop you. >> The only thing that gives you permission is the licence, >> which you should read to determine if you agree to its terms >> and if it gives you the permissions you need. > > OK. So it seems not so simple as I imagine. Because when lawyers are > there, it is not simple ! :P The different ways of your answers seem > to show that this kind of use is not clear. Perhaps, it depends of > the context and the use ? No, that is not true, and I did not say that. There are no field of use restrictions on OpenJDK AFAIK. All of us on this list believe that OpenJDK is free software, and you have the freedom to: * run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). * redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). My point is that you are asking for legal advice from people who are not lawyers. If you really want to know, read the licence. I think it is pretty clear-cut, and gives you the freedom you need. But my opinion is no substitute for reading the licence. Do I have to say it again? Read the licence. Andrew. From volker.simonis at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 13:18:16 2011 From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:18:16 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> Message-ID: The only freedom you DON'T have with OpenJDK is to: - run the TCK for it on your embedded device (see http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/index.html) - call it JAVA (but you can call it OpenJDK http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html). These two points still depend on Oracles discretion! For all the other points I fully agree with Andrew: you're free to use it however you want as long as you comply to the licence. Volker On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 02/01/2011 11:01 AM, stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com wrote: >> >>>> Is it possible to distribute a device with an embedded royalty free >>>> OpenJDK JRE ? >>> >>> You should consult your lawyer. ?Having said that, I am not a >>> lawyer but I can't seen anything in the licence that would stop you. >>> The only thing that gives you permission is the licence, >>> which you should read to determine if you agree to its terms >>> and if it gives you the permissions you need. >> >> OK. So it seems not so simple as I imagine. Because when lawyers are >> there, it is not simple ! :P The different ways of your answers seem >> to show that this kind of use is not clear. Perhaps, it depends of >> the context and the use ? > > No, that is not true, and I did not say that. ?There are no field of > use restrictions on OpenJDK AFAIK. > > All of us on this list believe that OpenJDK is free software, and you > have the freedom to: > > ? ?* run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > ? ?* study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish > (freedom 1). > ? ?* redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). > ? ?* distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). > > My point is that you are asking for legal advice from people who are > not lawyers. ?If you really want to know, read the licence. ?I think > it is pretty clear-cut, and gives you the freedom you need. ?But my > opinion is no substitute for reading the licence. > > Do I have to say it again? ?Read the licence. > > Andrew. > From scolebourne at joda.org Tue Feb 1 13:33:38 2011 From: scolebourne at joda.org (Stephen Colebourne) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:33:38 +0000 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 1 February 2011 11:30, Andrew Haley wrote: > All of us on this list believe that OpenJDK is free software, and you > have the freedom to: > > ? ?* run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > ? ?* study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish > (freedom 1). > ? ?* redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). > ? ?* distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). "All of us on this list believe that OpenJDK is free software". No, I'm afraid I unconvinced that Oracle's lawyers/managers necessarily agree, at least in the way that the point was phrased above: - Considerable efforts have been undertaken to prevent an open source implementation of Java SE from running on embedded devices (Harmony/Android) - There is an active legal case (vs Google). - There are active and known patents claimed (see Google case). - Oracle doesn't necessarily respect legal & social agreements, notably when the other party is a not-for-profit (Harmony/JSPA) - GPLv2 does not sufficiently talk about patents or other IP to guarantee safety. - The strength of the GPLv2 has yet to be fully tested in court IMO. - My attempts in other places to determine whether a fork of OpenJDK (friendly or hostile) would be attacked by Oracle legal have been met with a determined "no comment". Some consider the above to be FUD, I consider it to be healthy scepticism based on how the Oracle is running the ecosystem. YMMV. > Do I have to say it again? ?Read the licence. And when you do, try to read it from Oracle's perspective in terms of how they might find a loophole or other mechanism to block what you are doing. If you can satisfy yourself that there is none whatsoever, then by all means continue. Stephen From aph at redhat.com Tue Feb 1 13:46:44 2011 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 13:46:44 +0000 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4D480EC4.4050600@redhat.com> On 02/01/2011 01:33 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > On 1 February 2011 11:30, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Do I have to say it again? Read the licence. > > And when you do, try to read it from Oracle's perspective in terms of > how they might find a loophole or other mechanism to block what you > are doing. If you can satisfy yourself that there is none whatsoever, > then by all means continue. Exactly. Do not believe anyone here; read the licence and consult your lawyers if you're in any doubt. Ignore me because I am not qualified to give legal advice. This is not specific to OpenJDK: it applies to all software that is licensed. Andrew. From fcassia at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 13:47:24 2011 From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:47:24 -0300 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > - There is an active legal case (vs Google). Not against Oracle?s own OpenJDK. Let?s cut the Fear Uncertanty and Doubt, please. We?re talking here about runnning OpenJDK, not creating a derivative. FC From geir at pobox.com Tue Feb 1 13:52:39 2011 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:52:39 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> Message-ID: <78AEF1EE-D68C-48C7-B4F8-8D918D8535BC@pobox.com> On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne > wrote: > >> - There is an active legal case (vs Google). > Not against Oracle?s own OpenJDK. > > Let?s cut the Fear Uncertanty and Doubt, please. > We?re talking here about runnning OpenJDK, not creating a derivative. Really? You may need to modify the JVM to work on the specific device you wish to embed into, right? geir From aph at redhat.com Tue Feb 1 13:55:31 2011 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 13:55:31 +0000 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <78AEF1EE-D68C-48C7-B4F8-8D918D8535BC@pobox.com> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> <78AEF1EE-D68C-48C7-B4F8-8D918D8535BC@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4D4810D3.7050102@redhat.com> On 02/01/2011 01:52 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne >> wrote: >> >>> - There is an active legal case (vs Google). >> Not against Oracle?s own OpenJDK. >> >> Let?s cut the Fear Uncertanty and Doubt, please. >> We?re talking here about runnning OpenJDK, not creating a derivative. > > Really? You may need to modify the JVM to work on the specific device you wish to embed into, right? 1, 2, 3 ... go! Andrew. From stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com Tue Feb 1 14:03:52 2011 From: stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com (stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:03:52 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <78AEF1EE-D68C-48C7-B4F8-8D918D8535BC@pobox.com> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1><4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com><2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1><4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> <78AEF1EE-D68C-48C7-B4F8-8D918D8535BC@pobox.com> Message-ID: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADC33@ftrdmel1> > On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne > > wrote: > > > >> - There is an active legal case (vs Google). > > Not against Oracle?s own OpenJDK. > > > > Let?s cut the Fear Uncertanty and Doubt, please. > > We?re talking here about runnning OpenJDK, not creating a derivative. > > Really? You may need to modify the JVM to > work on the specific device > you wish to embed into, right? I don't need to modify OpenJDK to work on this device. It seems to be OK with the GPL licence but it seems that patents could be an issue. St?phane From fcassia at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 14:07:45 2011 From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:07:45 -0300 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADC33@ftrdmel1> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> <78AEF1EE-D68C-48C7-B4F8-8D918D8535BC@pobox.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADC33@ftrdmel1> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, wrote: > I don't need to modify OpenJDK to work on this device. It seems to be OK with the GPL licence but it seems that patents could be an issue. > > St?phane How do you infringe on a patent by runnign a third party unmodified code?. FC From stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com Tue Feb 1 14:12:34 2011 From: stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com (stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:12:34 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1><4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com><2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1><4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com><78AEF1EE-D68C-48C7-B4F8-8D918D8535BC@pobox.com><2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADC33@ftrdmel1> Message-ID: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADC4F@ftrdmel1> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, wrote: > > I don't need to modify OpenJDK to work on this device. > It seems to be OK with the GPL licence but it seems that patents could be an issue. > > > > St?phane > > How do you infringe on a patent by runnign a third party unmodified code?. > That's my question : is there any patent with royalties when OpenJDK is used (as is) in embedded system ? From mark at klomp.org Tue Feb 1 14:16:24 2011 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:16:24 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADC33@ftrdmel1> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> <78AEF1EE-D68C-48C7-B4F8-8D918D8535BC@pobox.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADC33@ftrdmel1> Message-ID: <1296569784.4270.7.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 15:03 +0100, stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com wrote: > I don't need to modify OpenJDK to work on this device. It seems to be > OK with the GPL licence but it seems that patents could be an issue. Patents are granted through the GPL by all contributors to OpenJDK: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents "OpenJDK is has been distributed by Oracle under GPLv2. GPLv2 includes two implicit patent licences, so users of OpenJDK should be safe, and modified versions of OpenJDK should also be safe (even if they're heavily modified). The protections in the GPL are unconditional. The software doesn't have to comply with any specifications in order to benefit from these protections." Cheers, Mark From neugens at limasoftware.net Tue Feb 1 19:05:09 2011 From: neugens at limasoftware.net (Mario Torre) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:05:09 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1296587109.2815.11.camel@galactica> Il giorno mar, 01/02/2011 alle 13.33 +0000, Stephen Colebourne ha scritto: > On 1 February 2011 11:30, Andrew Haley wrote: > > All of us on this list believe that OpenJDK is free software, and you > > have the freedom to: > > > > * run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > > * study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish > > (freedom 1). > > * redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). > > * distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). > > "All of us on this list believe that OpenJDK is free software". No, > I'm afraid I unconvinced that Oracle's lawyers/managers necessarily > agree, at least in the way that the point was phrased above: > - Considerable efforts have been undertaken to prevent an open source > implementation of Java SE from running on embedded devices > (Harmony/Android) Java, yes. We're talking about OpenJDK here, though. I know at least two cases where OpenJDK has been put and sold on different embedded devices. So, this is possible as soon as you *comply* with the *license*. The corner case is hotspot, but if I remember correctly Cacao managed to get the TCK running a mixture of Classpath and OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html So there is at least at least an historical precedent. > - There is an active legal case (vs Google). I don't comment on this here, but I believe that, unfair as it is, if Google used OpenJDK they would have avoided this. We have no proof of this though, so it doesn't matter. > - There are active and known patents claimed (see Google case). > - Oracle doesn't necessarily respect legal & social agreements, > notably when the other party is a not-for-profit (Harmony/JSPA) Well, this is a bit exaggerating, they are not super legal entities... > - The strength of the GPLv2 has yet to be fully tested in court IMO. Nobody in the world ever violated the GPL so that no legal action was ever required? Wow, so probably the GPL alone is indeed enough :) > Some consider the above to be FUD, I consider it to be healthy > scepticism based on how the Oracle is running the ecosystem. YMMV. It could be legitimate fear, which I partially share, but the way you put it is really just FUD, really. Cheers, Mario -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/ From hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 04:15:50 2011 From: hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com (hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:15:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices In-Reply-To: <1296587109.2815.11.camel@galactica> References: <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059AD8EC@ftrdmel1> <4D46E461.4060502@redhat.com> <2CAE5634D52E194BA393187E0568E1AC059ADB47@ftrdmel1> <4D47EED1.7020203@redhat.com> <1296587109.2815.11.camel@galactica> Message-ID: <553946.72915.qm@web33801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mario Torre > To: Stephen Colebourne > Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net > Sent: Tue, February 1, 2011 2:05:09 PM > Subject: Re: OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices > > Il giorno mar, 01/02/2011 alle 13.33 +0000, Stephen Colebourne ha > scritto: > > On 1 February 2011 11:30, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > All of us on this list believe that OpenJDK is free software, and you > > > have the freedom to: > > > > > > * run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > > > * study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you >wish > > > (freedom 1). > > > * redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). > > > * distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). > > > > "All of us on this list believe that OpenJDK is free software". No, > > I'm afraid I unconvinced that Oracle's lawyers/managers necessarily > > agree, at least in the way that the point was phrased above: > > - Considerable efforts have been undertaken to prevent an open source > > implementation of Java SE from running on embedded devices > > (Harmony/Android) > > Java, yes. We're talking about OpenJDK here, though. I know at least two > cases where OpenJDK has been put and sold on different embedded devices. > > So, this is possible as soon as you *comply* with the *license*. > > The corner case is hotspot, but if I remember correctly Cacao managed to > get the TCK running a mixture of Classpath and OpenJDK: > > http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html > > So there is at least at least an historical precedent. > > > - There is an active legal case (vs Google). > > I don't comment on this here, but I believe that, unfair as it is, if > Google used OpenJDK they would have avoided this. We have no proof of > this though, so it doesn't matter. > > > - There are active and known patents claimed (see Google case). > > - Oracle doesn't necessarily respect legal & social agreements, > > notably when the other party is a not-for-profit (Harmony/JSPA) > > Well, this is a bit exaggerating, they are not super legal entities... > > > - The strength of the GPLv2 has yet to be fully tested in court IMO. > > Nobody in the world ever violated the GPL so that no legal action was > ever required? Wow, so probably the GPL alone is indeed enough :) > > > Some consider the above to be FUD, I consider it to be healthy > > scepticism based on how the Oracle is running the ecosystem. YMMV. > > It could be legitimate fear, which I partially share, but the way you > put it is really just FUD, really. > The OpenJDK license and agreements clearly state that one can create any product as a derivative of OpenJDK. If one wants to get a JCK license and make claims of Java compatibility then they need to not modify things considerably and there are certain things which can't be changed or touched. Otherwise, and outside of compatibility, one can do much of what they want with the openjdk as long as the derivative is licensed according to the terms of the openjdk license. That means one can even distribute and link to that derivative as needed per the openjdk license. The keys are 1) being a derivative 2) do you want to claim "Java" compatibility or not 3) do you want to use the trade mark OpenJDK outside of "fair use" only terms and if so must not change the derivative beyond a majority. 2 and 3 are really optional based on use etc. IANAL but some of this looks pretty obvious. Apache Harmony and Android are two completely different issues from OpenJDK derivatives (with changes or not), so those things really are separate. There are clear words in the licenses of the Java Specifications, but then their origin, the JCP and the agreement the JSPA should invalidate those encumbrances, but of course on the Android issue if Google copied and pasted some code...their bad: Just a bit of a blabber and rant here. Please ignore if you don't want to read a long email: 1) The issue with Harmony isn't whether they can distribute the software; well, it is and it isn't per the use of the TCK and field of use and the JCP and JSPA along with prior public statements made by Sun; would be a legal battle. This is because it is a clean room implementation apparently, and with OpenJDK they explicitly say one can create derivative works (including those which change things considerable as long as they don't claim compatibility with "Java" nor run or get the TCK for it). I think what Sun and now Oracle is doing in that regard, considering their own processes, documents, and statements prior to Harmony, is completely wrong. Were a valid court to exist which understood all this, invalid meaning courts don't have the expertise in house without external counsel to try to make the best decision they can on such subject matter, and someone willing to test how well this would hold up in court, then I think that would be cleared up, but given the parameters at hand, it seems nothing is going to happen there. My personal feeling is Apache should just release Harmony without that certification and not make the claim about Java and compatibility...not even call it Java perhaps, but I think Sun/Oracle's own claims and statements would be used against them were they to try to take Apache to court for any use of the word Java or compatibility even without running the TCK (their "planned" license terms...i.e. what folks were voting on at the time or probably more correctly the information which led to groups working on the JSR to its completion etc; was work on the spec obtained by unjust means if prior to license release statements of good faith were publicly made or in a manner which can be verified). Let's say Harmony was 6 versus Java 5: From: http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=270: "7. Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent open source projects from creating and distributing their own compatible open source implementations of Java SE 6, using standard open source licenses. (Yes, you can create your own open source implementation of Java SE 6 if you really want to. But we're also doing everything we can to make it easy for you to use the original RI sources! See http://jdk6.dev.java.net.) " "10. The Java SE 6 TCK will be offered for license at no charge, with trademark and branding rights, but without support, to qualified not-for-profit entities (including not-for-profit academic institutions) and qualified individuals engaged in efforts to create compatible implementations of the Java SE 6 Specification." Understandably Apache is in a tight spot though... They have other projects etc, and law suits cost money. That money affects the other operations; too much and it could kill Apache. The above statements, Oracles prior statements in Harmony's defense, and the JSPA seems like a hell of a case. Too, I think if one looks how Apache is structured there is money coming from different companies which probably influence some of that too; different employees involved, different CEOs pulling wallet strings, etc etc. I can't say for sure on some specifics, but there are certainly different interests involved. Different Apache devs and members signing NDAs etc and working for competitors. Can cloud some things even more; such as who is really doing X for the greater good versus a competitive edge and who can trust who and how common ground is achieved. Just being real here. I believe there are some clear violations on Sun and now Oracles part which would play out in Apache's favor in courts. Good faith statements matter, and we have a lot of that taking place in different capacities from both Sun and Oracle in the past. Of course, this all depends on which state one were to sue as well, and this would have to be California, USA. 2) Android Dalvik is not a JDK nor JRE. It is a different thing altogether which converts binaries. I think at the end of the day, based on Oracles own statements before purchasing Sun in relation to Apache Harmony and other things, some of what occurs with OpenJDK, other things related to be able to implement Java specifications as long as you don't mention Java or run the TCK etc the case will be very hard to prove one way or another with regard to patents if those statements are allowed to be entered as evidence along with some of the above from the harmony section. Now, what could get them in the hornets nest so to speak is if there is a line by line copy of some code some where. Obviously this would have to be technical code, but too, courts don't have the skills required to really sort this out...legal folks are smart in their areas, but when it comes to CS, if they don't have that background, they can't really get it, and that could make technical code versus "public String toString()" or something harder for them to differentiate. That said, that part of the issue is manageable with regard to exposure if it can be proven that steps taken by Google affected Oracles wallet directly; i.e. were damages done. Damages etc would be paid along with costs and penalty, code would be changed, probably a cease and desist would be in place until the court is satisfied. Hopefully Google didn't do that. If they did, then it will be more cloudy; carriers will probably drop them etc and that could likely kill Android or cause a slow death of developers fearing no indemnification if they continue outside a cease and desist. Too, does the Dalvik have anything from the JVM in there. Are we just talking about the converter/compiler versus the runtime. That will all just have to play out. But, something I can see here is perhaps a shifting of the winds were Google to win. It would be a game changer for Apache and all I believe. Precedence would be set. New parameters would be visible for all. I think the JCP and some other things would get cleared up if their prior statements came to be the Achilles Heel. All this just really points to issues with software patents; leaving out whether or not copyright issues were violated or not; definitely copy and paste is a bad thing. I mean, what parts of Java were inspired by reading specifications for other languages? What keywords came from some other specification? What libraries ideas were copied from some other system? On and on. It is like patenting nuclear processes. We don't create those things; we just learn how to understand them. Same with applications or that damn one click bid thing someone patented ;-). If we continue on such a course I can envision a time when writing a program would be more about what one can legally implement versus getting the work done. Yeah...that economy will work out for us. Wade From mark at klomp.org Thu Feb 3 20:21:42 2011 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:21:42 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK Community Bylaws and Governing Board In-Reply-To: <20110203165944.6B528AC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110203165944.6B528AC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <1296764502.3341.87.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Hi Mark, On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 17:59 +0100, mark.reinhold at Oracle.com wrote: > A draft of the OpenJDK Community Bylaws is now available and an initial > Governing Board has been named. For further information please see: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/gb-discuss/2011-February/000078.html Thanks for publishing those. Here are some comments and concerns. > The Bylaws define a Governing Board which "oversees the structure, > operation, and overall health of the Community. It upholds and maintains > these Bylaws, resolves procedural disputes, and ensures that sufficient > infrastructure is available to Community members. There is no definition what infrastructure. It also doesn't state where this infrastructure comes from or who maintains it. > The Governing Board > has no direct authority over technical or release decisions." But there is a technical Appeals Process. > The members of the initial Governing Board are: > > - Adam Messinger (Chair, Oracle), > - Jason Gartner (Vice Chair, IBM), > - Prof. Doug Lea (At-Large, SUNY Oswego), > - Mike Milinkovich (At-Large, Eclipse), and > - Yours truly (OpenJDK Lead, Oracle). What happened to the previous board members? Fabiane, Simon, Dalibor, Andrew and Martin? > The OpenJDK Community is an association of developers who collaborate > upon open-source implementations of present and future versions of the > Java Platform, Standard Edition, as de?ned by the Java Community > Process As you know the current platform JSRs have licenses for the spec, ri and tck published by the JCP under terms that are in conflict with the GPL. It would be wise to resolve this before it gets people in trouble. I published a bit more analysis about this on my blog: http://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2010/11/28/moving-java-forward-through-the-jcp/ This is a bit of a blocker for progress if that issue isn't resolved first. But I am happy it does explicitly mention that it is a collaboration upon open-source implementations. It should also make sure that the minimum (GPL) copyright, trademark and patent grants that the project participants will collaborate under are explicitly defined, so people know they can rely on them. > A Participant is an individual who has subscribed to one or more > OpenJDK mailing lists. A Participant may post messages to a list, > submit simple patches, and make other kinds of small contributions. > > A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor > Agreement, or who works for an organization that has signed that > agreement or its equivalent and makes contributions within the scope > of that work and subject to that agreement. Only a Contributor may > submit anything larger than a simple patch. > > An OpenJDK Member is a Contributor [...] This effectively says that only those who assign all rights on their contributions to Oracle can be Members. That doesn't seem fair. Oracle is just one of the Participants in the community. Aggregating legal rights isn't a bad thing perse, but it is if it is done by an entity that then gets to assert more rights than the rest of the community on non-reciprocal terms. Again I have written why this is troubling about this a bit more in my blog: http://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2009/11/14/trusting-companies-with-your-code/ You should at least fix things so that either people can be members without having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to Oracle. > Projects vs Groups Personally I think it would be better to match Projects and Groups one on one. Projects have a clear "lifetime", at a certain point they don't produce anything new anymore (commits stop, nobody maintains things anymore, no users). Then they can be archived and garbage collected. That seems a healthy thing to have. Groups are a little too "vague" in my view. Although this is not a very strong argument I admit. This mainly comes from how a project seems defined by whether or not a group keeps it running. That doesn't feel right to me. A project should be able to control its own "destiny". Also because the Group Lead and the Project Lead seem to mostly overlap, so why not merge? But maybe this is the intention and I am just utterly confused about the Groups/Projects splitup. > New releases of Java SE Platform implementations are Projects, though > particularly large ones. Such JDK Release Projects may only be > proposed by the OpenJDK Lead and may only be Sponsored by the > Governing Board. Why this distinction and what defines "particularly large"? > The Governing Board consists of ?ve individuals: > * The Chair, appointed by Oracle; > * The Vice-Chair, appointed by IBM; > * The OpenJDK Lead, appointed by Oracle; and > * Two At-Large Members, nominated and elected as described below. It doesn't seem right that the first three say they are appointments. If you want to involve corporations as directly involved then at least make them only nominate someone that is actually involved in the project. Why Oracle and IBM? The previous board had engineers from Red Hat and Google who are the biggest contributors to OpenJDK after Oracle. And there is only a minority of independent candidates if you let companies nominate/appoint seats. > The Governing Board is, in part, a legislative body: It is empowered > to revise these Bylaws to re?ne existing processes, to de?ne new > processes, and to dispose of processes that are no longer required. > Any revision of these Bylaws must be approved by an Absolute > Two-Thirds Majority of the Governing Board. Shouldn't such major changes also be voted on by all Members? > During a two-week nomination period any OpenJDK Member may nominate an > individual who does not currently hold an appointed Governing Board > seat to ?ll one of the At-Large seats. That individual need not > already be an OpenJDK Member. This gets around the issue of Members having to assign all rights to Oracle to participate in the community, so that is good. But it is a little strange to have the board consist of non-members. > Once per calendar quarter, and one week prior to that quarter?s > scheduled meeting of the Governing Board, the OpenJDK Lead shall > publish a written report summarizing recent activities in the > Community. This report should include: [...] > > * A list of Projects that have made major state changes such as > publishing a release, integrating into a JDK Release Project, > or submitting or completing a JSR; > > * A list of Projects that should, in the OpenJDK Lead?s opinion, > be considered for inclusion in a future JDK Release Project > and its corresponding Umbrella JSR; As mentioned above it seems bad to tie Projects to JSRs until it is clear that the JCP will have rules to make sure that JSR spec, RI and TCK licenses will be published under GPL-compatible terms so they can be used by OpenJDK participants. > Technical Appeals Process Why is this included when the bylaws also state that the Governing Board has no direct authority over technical or release decisions? Hope that helps see where the blockers are and how to resolve them. Cheers, Mark From fabiane at tridedalo.com.br Thu Feb 3 22:05:43 2011 From: fabiane at tridedalo.com.br (Fabiane Bizinella Nardon) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:05:43 -0200 Subject: OpenJDK Community Bylaws and Governing Board In-Reply-To: <1296764502.3341.87.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> References: <20110203165944.6B528AC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <1296764502.3341.87.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <4D4B26B7.2080704@tridedalo.com.br> On 2/3/11 6:21 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > What happened to the previous board members? > Fabiane, Simon, Dalibor, Andrew and Martin? > The interim governing board, from which I was part of, was supposed to be dissolved in May of 2008. There was later an amendment [1] stating that the interim governing board should be dissolved in May of 2009. As expected, the transition from Sun/Oracle stalled the work we were doing previously on the board. Although until now there was no official board to replace the interim board, I, for the last months, believed that my term at the board was effectively finished. So, it's good to see that a new board will move things on. Fabiane [1] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/charter/#a1 From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Thu Feb 3 22:38:31 2011 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 23:38:31 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK Community Bylaws and Governing Board In-Reply-To: <20110203165944.6B528AC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110203165944.6B528AC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: On 3 February 2011 17:59, wrote: > A draft of the OpenJDK Community Bylaws is now available and an initial > Governing Board has been named. ?For further information please see: > > ?http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/gb-discuss/2011-February/000078.html > > - Mark > I pretty much agree with everything Mark Wielaard just said, but here are my initial impressions from reading this draft. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on the assumptions herein. * 'The OpenJDK Lead is responsible for the overall technical direction and activities of the major efforts within the Community, and for the openness and transparency of the development process. The OpenJDK Lead sits on the Governing Board.' and 'The Governing Board is not an executive body: It has no direct authority over technical or release decisions; that authority is held by the OpenJDK Lead. ' So the project's direction is dictated not by the community, but by one person appointed not by consensus but by Oracle. Not good. * 'A Participant is an individual who has subscribed to one or more OpenJDK mailing lists. A Participant may post messages to a list, submit simple patches, and make other kinds of small contributions.' So we can finally have trivial patches go in without an OCA? Nice to see some progress. On the flipside, I think Mark already outlined pretty clearly the whole issue with having higher positions that this dominated by copyright assignment to one corporate entity. * 'An OpenJDK member is a Contributor who has demonstrated a history of signi?cant contributions to the Community' Who determines 'significant'? This seems essential, given effectively these members get control over most of OpenJDK as a whole (voting rights, etc.) *' * The Chair, appointed by Oracle; * The Vice-Chair, appointed by IBM; * The OpenJDK Lead, appointed by Oracle; and * Two At-Large Members, nominated and elected as described below. A board dominated by Oracle, with a position for IBM who have so far contributed next to nothing, and two members chosen by a vote from 'OpenJDK members', presumably most of which will be Oracle employees. * 'The members of the initial Governing Board are: - Adam Messinger (Chair, Oracle), - Jason Gartner (Vice Chair, IBM), - Prof. Doug Lea (At-Large, SUNY Oswego), - Mike Milinkovich (At-Large, Eclipse), and - Yours truly (OpenJDK Lead, Oracle).' Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've only seen contributions from two of these five to OpenJDK (you and Doug). Why have they been given these positions? Why should they get to make decisions over people who have actually done work on OpenJDK? What happens if we don't want to abide by these rules? Do we not get to join the OpenJDK club? This seems less like progress than a step backwards into proprietary JDK land. -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D ?0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37 From simon at webmink.com Fri Feb 4 00:38:29 2011 From: simon at webmink.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 00:38:29 +0000 Subject: Governance Evaluation Message-ID: As an outgoing member of the v1 IGB I've posted comments on the new governance draft on my blog, at http://webmink.com/2011/02/04/rating-openjdk-governance/ and will be pleased to discuss them either on-list or at FOSDEM this weekend. Let me know any other way I can help. S. From denisl at openscg.com Fri Feb 4 17:40:32 2011 From: denisl at openscg.com (Lussier, Denis) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:40:32 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK Community Bylaws and Governing Board In-Reply-To: References: <20110203165944.6B528AC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: I do agree that Red Hat sponsored individuals have continuously played a huge role in keeping the "Open" in OpenJDK. It strikes me as odd that they wouldn't be represented on a governing board. --Luss http://openscg.org On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes < gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org> wrote: > > * 'The members of the initial Governing Board are: > > - Adam Messinger (Chair, Oracle), > - Jason Gartner (Vice Chair, IBM), > - Prof. Doug Lea (At-Large, SUNY Oswego), > - Mike Milinkovich (At-Large, Eclipse), and > - Yours truly (OpenJDK Lead, Oracle).' > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've only seen contributions from two of > these five to OpenJDK (you and Doug). Why have they been given these > positions? Why should they get to make decisions over people who have > actually done work on OpenJDK? > > What happens if we don't want to abide by these rules? Do we not get > to join the OpenJDK club? > > This seems less like progress than a step backwards into proprietary JDK > land. > From mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org Sun Feb 6 04:24:34 2011 From: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org (Mike Milinkovich) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 23:24:34 -0500 Subject: Governance Evaluation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00aa01cbc5b5$c32e3950$498aabf0$@milinkovich@eclipse.org> Simon, I think your analysis is well and fairly done. Unsurprisingly, you have a good grasp of the constraints at play. There are a few areas that you have pointed out that I think we may be able to improve. Areas which come to mind are: - "Roadmap": A you've pointed out, capturing some baseline principles on how releases will be conducted would be helpful. There could be some controversy on this that I'm unaware of, but at face value it seems plausible that we could add something useful there. - Under "Modern License", you point out that the Bylaws are silent on the use of the GPLv2. However, the referenced Contributor Agreement does require the use of "...under a suitable FSF (Free Software Foundation) or OSI (Open Source Initiative) approved license". Does that address your concern, or do you think that needs to be included in the Bylaws? - On "Transparency", your points are valid. All I can say that that now that we have the draft in place that we can demonstrate to the community over time that transparency is a value that we all share. No matter how (im)perfect a governance document may be, in the end it is deeds, not words, which will shape the success of a community. One quibble is that in the first section labelled "Open, Meritocratic Oligarchy", I would point out that the small board in its current form actually has one advantage, which is that because a 2/3's majority is required for many major decisions it only takes two votes to block a mistake. That doesn't change your larger point, but it does imply that a useful check is in place against capricious or inhospitable decisions. From: gb-discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:gb-discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps Sent: February-03-11 7:38 PM To: gb-discuss at openjdk.java.net Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net Subject: Governance Evaluation As an outgoing member of the v1 IGB I've posted comments on the new governance draft on my blog, at http://webmink.com/2011/02/04/rating-openjdk-governance/ and will be pleased to discuss them either on-list or at FOSDEM this weekend. Let me know any other way I can help. S. From mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org Sun Feb 6 04:24:34 2011 From: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org (Mike Milinkovich) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 23:24:34 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK Community Bylaws and Governing Board In-Reply-To: References: <20110203165944.6B528AC4@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <00a901cbc5b5$c2dee0d0$489ca270$@milinkovich@eclipse.org> Andrew, A few comments below: > * 'An OpenJDK member is a Contributor who has demonstrated a history > of signi?cant contributions to the Community' > > Who determines 'significant'? This seems essential, given effectively > these members get control over most of OpenJDK as a whole (voting > rights, etc.) My belief is that the existing OpenJDK Members will themselves define what 'significant' means. The only way to become an OpenJDK Member (after the initial start up phase) is to be nominated by an existing OpenJDK Member, followed by a Three-Vote Consensus vote of the existing OpenJDK Members. Which is a roundabout way of saying that the OpenJDK membership is intended to be a meritocracy in the normal sense of the word. Or at least that's what we were trying to say :-) > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've only seen contributions from two of > these five to OpenJDK (you and Doug). Why have they been given these > positions? Why should they get to make decisions over people who have > actually done work on OpenJDK? I believe that I was asked to participate because I have a lot of practice governing a community where there are lots of companies involved, as well as many individual contributors. Time will tell whether this community believes that my contributions were helpful. I can tell you that I think that the Governing Board should have relatively little impact on the activities of individual projects. Under the draft Bylaws, I hope you agree that the projects themselves are self-governing projects in the normal free software or open source way. From simon at webmink.com Sun Feb 6 13:49:34 2011 From: simon at webmink.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:49:34 +0100 Subject: Governance Evaluation In-Reply-To: <00aa01cbc5b5$c32e3950$498aabf0$@milinkovich@eclipse.org> References: <00aa01cbc5b5$c32e3950$498aabf0$@milinkovich@eclipse.org> Message-ID: <7940C8AE-A8DE-4177-8BC7-0C78EB13498B@webmink.com> Hi Mike, thanks for your reply. On 6 Feb 2011, at 05:24, Mike Milinkovich wrote: > Simon, > > I think your analysis is well and fairly done. Unsurprisingly, you have a good grasp of the constraints at play. Thanks. As I said at FOSDEM, I think one of the key positive steps would be an FAQ where the reasons for the various compromises embodied in this document can be explained. For example, there's a reason why the main non-Sun contributor to OpenJDK, Red Hat, is not included in the draft at any point whereas IBM, who have historically never contributed to OpenJDK (despite being a Java powerhouse), have a permanent seat on the governing Board. It should be documented so that everyone understands where they stand and there's no need for back-channel explanation. Another positive step would be to track all the suggestions on this list in the bug-trackers so they are out in the open and none get overlooked. This has the additional advantage that when people want to discuss a point in depth they can do so in the bug tracker rather than on the mailing list. > > There are a few areas that you have pointed out that I think we may be able to improve. Areas which come to mind are: > > - ?Roadmap?: A you?ve pointed out, capturing some baseline principles on how releases will be conducted would be helpful. There could be some controversy on this that I?m unaware of, but at face value it seems plausible that we could add something useful there. I had some questions about this. To be clear, what I am suggesting is a release schedule for OpenJDK builds, together with a list of the contributions that will go into each future build. Having this allows every community member to see and participate in the process. I am not referring to the JCP-related roadmap for new language features. > - Under ?Modern License?, you point out that the Bylaws are silent on the use of the GPLv2. However, the referenced Contributor Agreement does require the use of ?...under a suitable FSF (Free Software Foundation) or OSI (Open Source Initiative) approved license?. Does that address your concern, or do you think that needs to be included in the Bylaws? Not really, as the contributor agreement is an external document under unilateral control. I'd suggest that the governance assert that "OpenJDK is a community based around the use of software licensed under the GPL supplemented with necessary exceptions" - avoiding mentioning the version and leaving room for the move to GPLv3 that the Oracle guys here at FOSDEM foreshadowed. > > - On ?Transparency?, your points are valid. All I can say that that now that we have the draft in place that we can demonstrate to the community over time that transparency is a value that we all share. No matter how (im)perfect a governance document may be, in the end it is deeds, not words, which will shape the success of a community. > > One quibble is that in the first section labelled ?Open, Meritocratic Oligarchy?, I would point out that the small board in its current form actually has one advantage, which is that because a 2/3?s majority is required for many major decisions it only takes two votes to block a mistake. That doesn?t change your larger point, but it does imply that a useful check is in place against capricious or inhospitable decisions. While that's a potential feature, it cuts both ways and ensures that a non-preferred competitor like Azul or Red Hat can also have their proposals indefinitely blocked. At least it would be public (unlike the apparent long-term block we heard about at FOSDEM on Azul's OpenJDK TCK license) but it would still be a problem. Regards S. From geir at pobox.com Sun Feb 6 14:33:43 2011 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:33:43 -0500 Subject: Problems acquiring an OpenJDK TCK license? In-Reply-To: <7940C8AE-A8DE-4177-8BC7-0C78EB13498B@webmink.com> References: <00aa01cbc5b5$c32e3950$498aabf0$@milinkovich@eclipse.org> <7940C8AE-A8DE-4177-8BC7-0C78EB13498B@webmink.com> Message-ID: On Feb 6, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > While that's a potential feature, it cuts both ways and ensures that a non-preferred competitor like Azul or Red Hat can also have their proposals indefinitely blocked. At least it would be public (unlike the apparent long-term block we heard about at FOSDEM on Azul's OpenJDK TCK license) but it would still be a problem. Sorry? what? I keep seeing statements both from Oracle employees as well as their supporters in the Free software community that there are no examples of any problems getting a TCK for OpenJDK derivatives. Is that not the case? If true, this seems like an excellent thing for the new OpenJDK governing board to address immediately. geir From tmarble at info9.net Mon Feb 7 22:29:55 2011 From: tmarble at info9.net (Tom Marble) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:29:55 -0600 Subject: Mark-of-the-Beast security bug --- community collaboration? Message-ID: <4D507263.9050803@info9.net> All: Normally security issues would not be raised to the level of the 'discuss' list, but in the interest of getting as many 'eyes on the bug' such that the entire community can find and patch OpenJDK 6 quickly I respectfully would like to call everyone's attention to: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/07/java_denial_of_service_bug/ It would be great if we could find this and patch OpenJDK 6 deployments ASAP. --Tom From janburse at fastmail.fm Tue Feb 8 08:47:34 2011 From: janburse at fastmail.fm (Jan Burse) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:47:34 +0100 Subject: Mark-of-the-Beast security bug --- community collaboration? In-Reply-To: <4D507263.9050803@info9.net> References: <4D507263.9050803@info9.net> Message-ID: Tom Marble schrieb: > All: > > Normally security issues would not be raised to the level > of the 'discuss' list, but in the interest of getting > as many 'eyes on the bug' such that the entire community > can find and patch OpenJDK 6 quickly I respectfully > would like to call everyone's attention to: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/07/java_denial_of_service_bug/ > > It would be great if we could find this and patch > OpenJDK 6 deployments ASAP. > > --Tom > Some interesting discussion happened here: http://www.exploringbinary.com/a-closer-look-at-the-java-2-2250738585072012e-308-bug/ From mark at klomp.org Tue Feb 8 09:59:01 2011 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:59:01 +0100 Subject: Mark-of-the-Beast security bug --- community collaboration? In-Reply-To: <4D507263.9050803@info9.net> References: <4D507263.9050803@info9.net> Message-ID: <1297159141.6447.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 16:29 -0600, Tom Marble wrote: > Normally security issues would not be raised to the level > of the 'discuss' list, but in the interest of getting > as many 'eyes on the bug' such that the entire community > can find and patch OpenJDK 6 quickly I respectfully > would like to call everyone's attention to: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/07/java_denial_of_service_bug/ > > It would be great if we could find this and patch > OpenJDK 6 deployments ASAP. There has been extensive discussion on the core-libs mailinglist, with a patch and some historic digging to find where the issue came from. Short story, it was already found through the Free Software Jacks testsuite in 2001 (!). http://sourceware.org/mauve/jacks.html http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/jacks/docs/tests.html?cvsroot=mauve#3.10.2-runtime reported by the Jikes compiler hacker Eric Blake. http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=4421494 The bug report even has a suggested fix. Dmitry Nadezhin posted a patch in 2009, but unfortunately that didn't make it in. http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-November/003153.html https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100119 It was rediscovered through the php issue a week ago. http://www.exploringbinary.com/java-hangs-when-converting-2-2250738585072012e-308/ Andrew Haley almost immediate posted a new patch for it last week. http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-February/005795.html Hopefully it will go into IcedTea6 ASAP according to Andrew Hughes. http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-February/005836.html With possibly more security fixes following next week. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alerts-086861.html Cheers, Mark From mark at klomp.org Tue Feb 8 11:01:24 2011 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:01:24 +0100 Subject: Mark-of-the-Beast security bug --- community collaboration? In-Reply-To: <1297159141.6447.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> References: <4D507263.9050803@info9.net> <1297159141.6447.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1297162884.3956.2.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 10:59 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > It would be great if we could find this and patch > > OpenJDK 6 deployments ASAP. > > There has been extensive discussion on the core-libs mailinglist, with a > patch and some historic digging to find where the issue came from. > > Short story, it was already found through the Free Software Jacks > testsuite in 2001 (!). http://sourceware.org/mauve/jacks.html > http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/jacks/docs/tests.html?cvsroot=mauve#3.10.2-runtime > reported by the Jikes compiler hacker Eric Blake. > http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=4421494 The bug report even has a > suggested fix. Dmitry Nadezhin posted a patch in 2009, but unfortunately > that didn't make it in. > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-November/003153.html > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100119 > It was rediscovered through the php issue a week ago. > http://www.exploringbinary.com/java-hangs-when-converting-2-2250738585072012e-308/ > Andrew Haley almost immediate posted a new patch for it last week. > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-February/005795.html > Hopefully it will go into IcedTea6 ASAP according to Andrew Hughes. > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-February/005836.html > With possibly more security fixes following next week. > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alerts-086861.html For those that cannot wait and need a fix right now Marc Schoenefeld of the Red Hat Security Response Team created a script that will create a jar that you can use with -Xbootclasspath/p:prevent_double_dos.jar to mitigate the DoS bug till there are full new security releases: https://code.google.com/p/javapharmacy/source/browse/trunk/scripts/harden_against_jre_dos.sh Cheers, Mark From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Wed Feb 9 13:23:56 2011 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:23:56 +0000 Subject: Mark-of-the-Beast security bug --- community collaboration? In-Reply-To: <1297162884.3956.2.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> References: <4D507263.9050803@info9.net> <1297159141.6447.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> <1297162884.3956.2.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: On 8 February 2011 11:01, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 10:59 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> > It would be great if we could find this and patch >> > OpenJDK 6 deployments ASAP. >> >> There has been extensive discussion on the core-libs mailinglist, with a >> patch and some historic digging to find where the issue came from. >> >> Short story, it was already found through the Free Software Jacks >> testsuite in 2001 (!). http://sourceware.org/mauve/jacks.html >> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/jacks/docs/tests.html?cvsroot=mauve#3.10.2-runtime >> reported by the Jikes compiler hacker Eric Blake. >> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=4421494 The bug report even has a >> suggested fix. Dmitry Nadezhin posted a patch in 2009, but unfortunately >> that didn't make it in. >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-November/003153.html >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100119 >> It was rediscovered through the php issue a week ago. >> http://www.exploringbinary.com/java-hangs-when-converting-2-2250738585072012e-308/ >> Andrew Haley almost immediate posted a new patch for it last week. >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-February/005795.html >> Hopefully it will go into IcedTea6 ASAP according to Andrew Hughes. >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-February/005836.html >> With possibly more security fixes following next week. >> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alerts-086861.html > > For those that cannot wait and need a fix right now Marc Schoenefeld of > the Red Hat Security Response Team created a script that will create a > jar that you can use with -Xbootclasspath/p:prevent_double_dos.jar to > mitigate the DoS bug till there are full new security releases: > https://code.google.com/p/javapharmacy/source/browse/trunk/scripts/harden_against_jre_dos.sh > > Cheers, > > Mark > > The security releases for IcedTea6 (1.7.9, 1.8.6, 1.9.6) are on the server and in Mercurial. I'm about to do a full announcement. Oracle decided to spring a 'surprise' release on us: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alert-cve-2010-4476-305811.html so we'll push one out too. 496b615ccad2a950783b1a2f30a8657956f8c9d9bccb6ab9effc1164ab830792 icedtea6-1.7.9.tar.gz d392c95e76b5bdf21fb4bce8fc5cdc530bdf5bda014cb96fa9cd3efdfdbeff87 icedtea6-1.8.6.tar.gz 100e61fbc3157b4839413951b0247f7ccabb0dcff6d037fbb372d5a13088adc2 icedtea6-1.9.6.tar.gz -- 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: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D ?0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37 From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Wed Feb 9 13:44:03 2011 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:44:03 +0000 Subject: Mark-of-the-Beast security bug --- community collaboration? In-Reply-To: References: <4D507263.9050803@info9.net> <1297159141.6447.13.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> <1297162884.3956.2.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: On 9 February 2011 13:23, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: > On 8 February 2011 11:01, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 10:59 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: >>> > It would be great if we could find this and patch >>> > OpenJDK 6 deployments ASAP. >>> >>> There has been extensive discussion on the core-libs mailinglist, with a >>> patch and some historic digging to find where the issue came from. >>> >>> Short story, it was already found through the Free Software Jacks >>> testsuite in 2001 (!). http://sourceware.org/mauve/jacks.html >>> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/jacks/docs/tests.html?cvsroot=mauve#3.10.2-runtime >>> reported by the Jikes compiler hacker Eric Blake. >>> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=4421494 The bug report even has a >>> suggested fix. Dmitry Nadezhin posted a patch in 2009, but unfortunately >>> that didn't make it in. >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-November/003153.html >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100119 >>> It was rediscovered through the php issue a week ago. >>> http://www.exploringbinary.com/java-hangs-when-converting-2-2250738585072012e-308/ >>> Andrew Haley almost immediate posted a new patch for it last week. >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-February/005795.html >>> Hopefully it will go into IcedTea6 ASAP according to Andrew Hughes. >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2011-February/005836.html >>> With possibly more security fixes following next week. >>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alerts-086861.html >> >> For those that cannot wait and need a fix right now Marc Schoenefeld of >> the Red Hat Security Response Team created a script that will create a >> jar that you can use with -Xbootclasspath/p:prevent_double_dos.jar to >> mitigate the DoS bug till there are full new security releases: >> https://code.google.com/p/javapharmacy/source/browse/trunk/scripts/harden_against_jre_dos.sh >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mark >> >> > > The security releases for IcedTea6 (1.7.9, 1.8.6, 1.9.6) are on the > server and in Mercurial. ?I'm about to do a full announcement. ?Oracle > decided to spring a 'surprise' release on us: > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alert-cve-2010-4476-305811.html > so we'll push one out too. > > 496b615ccad2a950783b1a2f30a8657956f8c9d9bccb6ab9effc1164ab830792 > icedtea6-1.7.9.tar.gz > d392c95e76b5bdf21fb4bce8fc5cdc530bdf5bda014cb96fa9cd3efdfdbeff87 > icedtea6-1.8.6.tar.gz > 100e61fbc3157b4839413951b0247f7ccabb0dcff6d037fbb372d5a13088adc2 > icedtea6-1.9.6.tar.gz > > -- > 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: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) > Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D ?0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37 > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2011-February/012004.html -- 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: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D ?0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37 From behrangsa at gmail.com Thu Feb 10 06:49:32 2011 From: behrangsa at gmail.com (Behrang Saeedzadeh) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:49:32 +1100 Subject: Deprecating puzzling APIs Message-ID: In particular, I am referring to Integer.getInteger, Boolean.getBoolean, etc. series of methods. These methods are API smells, confusing to new users, and can lead to all sorts of bugs. Shouldn't we start deprecating these methods? Cheers, Behrang Saeedzadeh http://www.behrang.org From fcassia at gmail.com Thu Feb 17 04:53:15 2011 From: fcassia at gmail.com (fernando cassia) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:53:15 -0300 Subject: Leveraging the thousands of Java ME apps on the market and run those on tablets... (RIM PLaybook, WebOS) Message-ID: <4D5CA9BB.60007@gmail.com> Hi there, I?m a long-time Java SE advocate on the desktop (both Windows and Linux). I also used to be a Palm OS fan on the mobile side, and have been running Java mobile apps (J2ME) on my ancient PalmOS mobile for years, software which wasn?t even designed to run on the PalmOS, all thanks to the IBM J9 Java VM for Palm OS. Having said that, I?ve been looking at the tablet marketplace with interest, but haven?t found any that I find outstanding from the point of view of OS openness. Ideally, a tablet to be attractive for me would have to: 1. Allow porting Linux apps to it (if not run Linux natively). I guess I?ll have to wait for a MeeGo based tablet?. 2. Have some form of Java VM available (wheter Oracle licensed or full OpenJDK or PhoneME ported and running within it). With the thousands of Java ME apps already available on the market, it boggles the mind as to why no tablet OS developer is taking advantage of this and offering the possibility to run Java ME midlets as "widgets" on the larger tablet OS screen. Or why isn?t Oracle pushing the Java VM to tablet devices. If Windows Vista and 7 have desktop widgets, why can?t be Java ME apps run as widgets on a tablet OS ?!?... So.... I was partly attracted to RIM?s Playbook as it mentioned "future" Java compatibility.... possibly to run Blackberry mobile apps designed for the RIM phones Java ME.... but nothing has been delivered so far AFAIK on SDKs etc. HP?s WebOS tablets won?t likely include a built-in Java VM and it?s unclear how easy it would be to develop one. So, this is the main question: How difficult would it be to port PhoneME and OpenJDK to the Playbook?s QNX OS foundation?. What about HP?s WebOS?. I guess the "community" can take care of running OpenJDK and PhoneME (open source J2ME) on MeeGo as it?s the most open of all the previously mentioned OSs... FC PS: If I were Oracle, I?d port PhoneME and OpenJDK to both WebOS and RIM?s QNX Playbook OS, then do a major relaunch of the Sun "Java App Store", featuring Ellison showing sample .JAR /.JAD J2ME apps downloaded from the web running as widgets on those tablet OS... you know, give away the open source Java runtime, and make money as middle man selling Java apps to end users from the "Java App Store"... From hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 15:04:09 2011 From: hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com (hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:04:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Leveraging the thousands of Java ME apps on the market and run those on tablets... (RIM PLaybook, WebOS) In-Reply-To: <4D5CA9BB.60007@gmail.com> References: <4D5CA9BB.60007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <759114.19090.qm@web33806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I don't know the answer Fernando, but I have been wondering this for years. Sun, and now Oracle, are way behind the ball on mobile Java, and I've never been given any answers as to why when I have asked the folks I know. Really I think it just comes down to a losing model being chosen where it was left up to vendors and carriers to implement the pieces of the specification versus something like what I'm fixing to talk about. Google goes the complete full circle with the OS and all, but for just supporting Java, Oracle wouldn't have had to have done that. On some systems, you probably can't get a JVM on them. But, what could happen is to precompile the application to a native version for a targeted platform. Different look and feels etc and capabilities could exist which one could include in their final output; well on the look and feel I envision this just using the native libraries and essentially exist a translation layer of some sort. Would need preprocessors etc too. Write once run anywhere is a good idea in principal, but in reality that isn't going to always be possible. Where it is, and where it makes good business sense, then it is good to have, but based on what has won and what hasn't it seems that model wasn't a winner. It is much more likely for a solution similar to what xmlvm is doing to be done and work quite well in my estimation. The major pluses are resource and library gain. We as developers don't have to have resources for every specific mobile device and too we can reuse existing and new libraries across platforms, but of course we have to target and test those platforms (and if an open community we could fix the issues in the platforms where it is an issue with the environment). Something along these lines based on openjdk and phone me would be good in my opinion; moving from simpler to more complex for different devices and categories of course. If Oracle won't or isn't going to focus on such an effort it would be nice to get such a thing going here, but resources and time are a big BIG thing which don't come easy or cheap, so it is easy to criticize. Certainly the GNU "with linking and classpath exceptions" would be a big deal because of this, and this certainly makes building such a thing on openjdk attractive for all who might be involved. For the final output, I envision common libraries being generated on systems which support that, and others, where there can only be a single executable linked in, then everything required being statically linked into that file. This is where not having the JVM itself and everything needed to support that is very important. Have to keep things as small as possible. Outside of mobile devices, a system similar to that described above, would be good for desktops too. First, there are larger applications where it makes sense to have an installer etc, and embedding a JVM and all the capabilities makes a lot of sense. Say some system which is able to support plugins and can grow with the user and their needs. Or, just the fact you need an installer means it is more feasible than apps which don't need an installer. For utility applications or things like gotomypc which need a simple bootstrap launcher to grab and download the other needed requirements or are just a simple shell for remoting all that top heavy stuff doesn't make any sense at all. This is where such things make a lot of sense for desktops. Even when thinking about Perl, Python, etc, the same issue exists of a top heavy runtime with all this functionality globbed into it. Basically if the JVM and native libraries etc were broken down into finer and finer grained sub-systems of linked libraries with statically linkable counter parts, that would fix a lot of that I imagine; off the top of the head kinds of thoughts. Too, precompiling the Java logic to a final output would be needed. I don't think a final output supporting byte code would be able to be small enough; VM would naturally take up a lot of space. I'm sure there is an extremely large amount of work for such a feat though. Wade ================== Wade Chandler Software Engineer and Developer NetBeans Dream Team Member and Contributor http://wiki.netbeans.org/wiki/view/NetBeansDreamTeam http://www.netbeans.org ----- Original Message ---- > From: fernando cassia > To: discuss at openjdk.java.net > Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:53:15 PM > Subject: Leveraging the thousands of Java ME apps on the market and run those >on tablets... (RIM PLaybook, WebOS) > > Hi there, > > I?m a long-time Java SE advocate on the desktop (both Windows and Linux). I >also used to be a Palm OS fan on the mobile side, and have been running Java >mobile apps (J2ME) on my ancient PalmOS mobile for years, software which wasn?t >even designed to run on the PalmOS, all thanks to the IBM J9 Java VM for Palm >OS. > > Having said that, I?ve been looking at the tablet marketplace with interest, >but haven?t found any that I find outstanding from the point of view of OS >openness. Ideally, a tablet to be attractive for me would have to: > > 1. Allow porting Linux apps to it (if not run Linux natively). I guess I?ll >have to wait for a MeeGo based tablet?. > 2. Have some form of Java VM available (wheter Oracle licensed or full OpenJDK >or PhoneME ported and running within it). > > With the thousands of Java ME apps already available on the market, it boggles >the mind as to why no tablet OS developer is taking advantage of this and >offering the possibility to run Java ME midlets as "widgets" on the larger >tablet OS screen. Or why isn?t Oracle pushing the Java VM to tablet devices. > > If Windows Vista and 7 have desktop widgets, why can?t be Java ME apps run as >widgets on a tablet OS ?!?... > > So.... I was partly attracted to RIM?s Playbook as it mentioned "future" Java >compatibility.... possibly to run Blackberry mobile apps designed for the RIM >phones Java ME.... but nothing has been delivered so far AFAIK on SDKs etc. > > HP?s WebOS tablets won?t likely include a built-in Java VM and it?s unclear >how easy it would be to develop one. > > So, this is the main question: > > How difficult would it be to port PhoneME and OpenJDK to the Playbook?s QNX OS >foundation?. > What about HP?s WebOS?. > I guess the "community" can take care of running OpenJDK and PhoneME (open >source J2ME) on MeeGo as it?s the most open of all the previously mentioned >OSs... > > FC > > PS: If I were Oracle, I?d port PhoneME and OpenJDK to both WebOS and RIM?s QNX >Playbook OS, then do a major relaunch of the Sun "Java App Store", featuring >Ellison showing sample .JAR /.JAD J2ME apps downloaded from the web running as >widgets on those tablet OS... you know, give away the open source Java runtime, >and make money as middle man selling Java apps to end users from the "Java App >Store"... > > > From fcassia at gmail.com Thu Feb 17 15:14:39 2011 From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:14:39 -0300 Subject: Leveraging the thousands of Java ME apps on the market and run those on tablets... (RIM PLaybook, WebOS) In-Reply-To: <759114.19090.qm@web33806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4D5CA9BB.60007@gmail.com> <759114.19090.qm@web33806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:04 PM, wrote: > On some systems, you probably can't get a JVM on them. But, what could happen is > to precompile the application to a native version for a targeted platform. Why not? What prevents Oracle from compiling a JVM for RIM Playbook OS and offer it for download from Java.com?. Vendors can just pacakge app-installers that check if the JVM is present on the device and if not, download it Over the Air and install it. H*ck, Sun even offered a MIDLET 1.0 Java VM for PalmOS a decade ago. > Different look and feels etc and capabilities could exist which one could > include in their final output; well on the look and feel I envision this just > using the native libraries and essentially exist a translation layer of some > sort. Would need preprocessors etc too. Java adopts the native OS look an feel (Java SE at least) I?ve seen it on Windows and Linux. There?s no technical reason why that can?t be made in other OSs too. > Write once run anywhere is a good idea in principal, but in reality that isn't > going to always be possible. Where it is, and where it makes good business > sense, then it is good to have, but based on what has won and what hasn't it > seems that model wasn't a winner. Just because there?s no central store to retrieve apps. Sun had it right in creating a Java App Store. Oracle should refloat that effort. Abonut J2ME apps, cross-platform works, I run Google?s GMail Java ME app on my Palm Centro, even while it isn?t a supported configuration. It just works. What I envision is being able to click on a ".jad" http:// link on a tablet browser, and (after the Java VM is configured as helper app) the OS offering me to run the mobile app as a desktop widget on the given tablet. Like http://ho.io/GMail4Java FC From hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 15:46:14 2011 From: hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com (hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:46:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Leveraging the thousands of Java ME apps on the market and run those on tablets... (RIM PLaybook, WebOS) In-Reply-To: References: <4D5CA9BB.60007@gmail.com> <759114.19090.qm@web33806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <668264.35488.qm@web33808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Fernando Cassia > To: hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com > Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net > Sent: Thu, February 17, 2011 10:14:39 AM > Subject: Re: Leveraging the thousands of Java ME apps on the market and run >those on tablets... (RIM PLaybook, WebOS) > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:04 PM, wrote: > > On some systems, you probably can't get a JVM on them. But, what could >happen is > > to precompile the application to a native version for a targeted platform. > > Why not? What prevents Oracle from compiling a JVM for RIM Playbook OS > and offer it for download from Java.com?. Vendors can just pacakge > app-installers that check if the JVM is present on the device and if > not, download it Over the Air and install it. > > H*ck, Sun even offered a MIDLET 1.0 Java VM for PalmOS a decade ago. > That is a single system. iPhone...not going to happen until the license changes, and unlike SuperWaba, I don't feel I can force folks to jail break their phone, but too, that gets into legal world. Most regular application users don't even know what that means. > > Different look and feels etc and capabilities could exist which one could > > include in their final output; well on the look and feel I envision this >just > > using the native libraries and essentially exist a translation layer of some > > sort. Would need preprocessors etc too. > > Java adopts the native OS look an feel (Java SE at least) I?ve seen it > on Windows and Linux. There?s no technical reason why that can?t be > made in other OSs too. > > > Write once run anywhere is a good idea in principal, but in reality that >isn't > > going to always be possible. Where it is, and where it makes good business > > sense, then it is good to have, but based on what has won and what hasn't it > > seems that model wasn't a winner. > > Just because there?s no central store to retrieve apps. Sun had it > right in creating a Java App Store. Oracle should refloat that effort. > Yes and no on the store. You as a person who knows Java thinks...Java store. The person on a BB, iPhone, or Droid, thinks, hmmm...I use the BB app store, or apple app store, etc which is right there on their phone with no external setup. It is all about customer expectations and marketing etc. Hard to have 2 stores in reality. Now, they could work with the other companies perhaps to make it happen. Then they could have the Java store which transparent to the user sells those same apps through those specific app stores. They could use such a thing to help pay for it. > Abonut J2ME apps, cross-platform works, I run Google?s GMail Java ME > app on my Palm Centro, even while it isn?t a supported configuration. > It just works. > > What I envision is being able to click on a ".jad" http:// link on a > tablet browser, and (after the Java VM is configured as helper app) > the OS offering me to run the mobile app as a desktop widget on the > given tablet. > But doesn't that all depend on an implementation of the JVM for the device you are using? Too, what if it is a more advanced phone offering their own APIs such as Black Berry? My storm has some apps I have put on it that just don't look great unless they use the right APIs. The plain jane JME applications don't compare. Wade From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Wed Feb 23 19:07:39 2011 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Dr Andrew John Hughes) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:07:39 +0000 Subject: Fwd: Class file format java7 In-Reply-To: <4D655699.9020608@oracle.com> References: <4D65376B.3040900@oracle.com> <4D655699.9020608@oracle.com> Message-ID: Forwarding as suggested: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian Goetz Date: 23 February 2011 18:48 Subject: Re: Class file format java7 To: Dr Andrew John Hughes No one on this list is likely to know the answer to this, so you will probably do better to take this question to openjdk-discuss. On 2/23/2011 1:45 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > On 23 February 2011 16:52, Roel Spilker ?wrote: >> >> Thanks. >> >> The current status is Public Review. >> >> The documentation can be downloaded from >> http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/pr/jsr292/index.html >> > > It's a funny 'public' review when the specification requires me to > agree to a license, specifically the 'License Agreement for JSR-000292 > Supporting Dynamically Typed Languages on the Java Platform 0208 > Public Review Draft'. ?IANAL, but some of the terms of that would seem > to conflict with the GPL license of the OpenJDK implementation, > notably '(i) developing implementations of the Specification for your > internal, non-commercial use'. > > Is any of this available publicly without draconian licensing and clickthroughs? > >> The proposed class file format changes can be found inside the javadoc >> at /java/lang/invoke/package-summary.html#jvm_mods >> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Brian Goetz ?wrote: >>> >>> Classfile changes for Java SE 7 are being driven by JSR-292. ?I think they >>> have or are about to go to public review? ?Check the JCP website for >>> JSR-292, and watch John Rose's blog for announcements. >>> >>> On 2/23/2011 11:02 AM, Roel Spilker wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> In java7 some modifications will be made to the class file format. At >>>> least there will be some new constant types added to the constant >>>> pool. For instance CONSTANT_MethodHandle for method handles. >>>> >>>> Is there already documentation available? I'm looking for something like >>>> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jvms/second_edition/html/ClassFile.doc.html >>>> >>>> If not, when can this be expected? I don't need a final version, but I >>>> would like to start working on java7 compliancy. >>>> >>>> Roel Spilker >>>> >>>> P.S. Can anybody tell me what happened to constant type #17? >>>> >>> >> >> > > > -- 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: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D ?0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37