From dantran at gmail.com  Wed Oct  5 19:24:28 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:24:28 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

What kind of obligation do we need?  ( like expose our source code
since OpenJDK is GNU ? )

Big Thanks

-Dan


From dantran at gmail.com  Thu Oct  6 15:18:56 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 08:18:56 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>

We also got advice from our council to scan the source files under
openjdk 7 source directory for NONE GPLv2 with "Classpath" exception
[1] .  We found about 1000 files, all of those files fall under the
following categories: demo, sample, test, NONE GPL file ( ie has
apache2 or other friendly license ).

Since those files do not apply to us, I guess we can ship OpenJDK
without exposing our source code under GPLv2 license.

How about others? How do you approach this issue?

Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?

Thanks

-Dan






[1] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/gplv2+ce.html

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> What kind of obligation do we need? ?( like expose our source code
> since OpenJDK is GNU ? )
>
> Big Thanks
>
> -Dan
>


From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 05:58:47 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:58:47 +0200
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>

> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?

What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?


From dantran at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 06:11:46 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 23:11:46 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>

ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.

-D

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
>
> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
>


From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 06:26:29 2011
From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:26:29 +0100
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dan,

Your mails are quite hard to understand (and I'm guessing English
isn't your first language).

Could you try explaining again exactly what you want to do and why you
want to bundle a JRE or JDK with your app?

Are you making modifications to OpenJDK? Or is your application just a
Java-based app and you want to ship a JRE for convenience?

Thanks,

Ben

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
> ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
> with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.
>
> -D
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
>>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
>>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
>>
>> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
>>
>


From dantran at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 07:34:42 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 00:34:42 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry about the confusion I've made.

Basically, I would like to ship OpenJDK's JRE with my App, instead of
Oracle's JRE which requires a license/support fee.

Shipping OpenJDK with our app is purely for the convenient to our
customer.  There is no reason for us to modify OpenJDK

However, according to OpenJDK license which is GPLv2 with "Classpath"
Exception.  So my guess is we can ship OpenJDK with our app without
the obligation of open up our source code.

However, to be very sure, I  would like to ping this forum to see if
I miss any thing, and also to find out if any one are on the same
route

Thanks

-Dan

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ben Evans
<benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Your mails are quite hard to understand (and I'm guessing English
> isn't your first language).
>
> Could you try explaining again exactly what you want to do and why you
> want to bundle a JRE or JDK with your app?
>
> Are you making modifications to OpenJDK? Or is your application just a
> Java-based app and you want to ship a JRE for convenience?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
>> with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.
>>
>> -D
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
>>>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
>>>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
>>>
>>> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
>>>
>>
>


From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 07:50:46 2011
From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:50:46 +0100
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>

First of all, IANAL.

Having said that, if you aren't modifying the OpenJDK then all you are
doing is bundling a piece of unmodified GPL software into the same
delivery mechanism as your proprietary application. Which should be
fine - just include the GPL, a README which explains where to get the
source for OpenJDK from, and don't claim that OpenJDK is your work, or
anything to do with you.

So you *can* do this. The question really is - *should* you do this.
And there are very good reasons for not bundling a platform along with
an application. I'm sure other people will chime in with other very
good reasons why not to do this, but:

Field Support Overhead. This is a huge one. You can't possibly test
your app+JRE bundle on every conceivable machine configuration that
your customers will have. Yet, by shipping a combined app+JRE, you
have made your company responsible for support of that combined bundle
in the eyes of your customers. The costs of servicing support requests
from your customers will increase enormously if you are shipping a
private JRE along with the app. If Windows is one of the platforms you
need to support, then this problem becomes an absolute nightmare,
especially if your customers are remote (and even worse if your
customers are essentially corporate desktop users).

If you're absolutely set on going this route, take a look at the
profit model for your app, and the support cost model. Work out how
many additional support cases it would take before your profit margin
is eaten up. If that number isn't very, very large, then don't do
this.

Thanks,

Ben

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry about the confusion I've made.
>
> Basically, I would like to ship OpenJDK's JRE with my App, instead of
> Oracle's JRE which requires a license/support fee.
>
> Shipping OpenJDK with our app is purely for the convenient to our
> customer. ?There is no reason for us to modify OpenJDK
>
> However, according to OpenJDK license which is GPLv2 with "Classpath"
> Exception. ?So my guess is we can ship OpenJDK with our app without
> the obligation of open up our source code.
>
> However, to be very sure, I ?would like to ping this forum to see if
> I miss any thing, and also to find out if any one are on the same
> route
>
> Thanks
>
> -Dan
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ben Evans
> <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Your mails are quite hard to understand (and I'm guessing English
>> isn't your first language).
>>
>> Could you try explaining again exactly what you want to do and why you
>> want to bundle a JRE or JDK with your app?
>>
>> Are you making modifications to OpenJDK? Or is your application just a
>> Java-based app and you want to ship a JRE for convenience?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
>>> with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.
>>>
>>> -D
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
>>>>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
>>>>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
>>>>
>>>> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 08:00:09 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:00:09 +0200
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY0EjyOLuRTzZ65bO+GEuxyUSRyoKMO4bLP0rTGQHnFxmA@mail.gmail.com>

2011/10/7 Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com>:
> Sorry about the confusion I've made.
>
> Basically, I would like to ship OpenJDK's JRE with my App, instead of
> Oracle's JRE which requires a license/support fee.
>
> Shipping OpenJDK with our app is purely for the convenient to our
> customer. ?There is no reason for us to modify OpenJDK
>
> However, according to OpenJDK license which is GPLv2 with "Classpath"
> Exception. ?So my guess is we can ship OpenJDK with our app without
> the obligation of open up our source code.
>
> However, to be very sure, I ?would like to ping this forum to see if
> I miss any thing, and also to find out if any one are on the same
> route
>

Dan, when you told about embedding OpenJDK (may be only JRE part), do
you think at Mac OS/X apps for AppStore ?


From geir at pobox.com  Fri Oct  7 10:20:33 2011
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:20:33 -0400
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>

have you read the GPL recently?

geir

On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Ben Evans wrote:

> First of all, IANAL.
> 
> Having said that, if you aren't modifying the OpenJDK then all you are
> doing is bundling a piece of unmodified GPL software into the same
> delivery mechanism as your proprietary application. Which should be
> fine - just include the GPL, a README which explains where to get the
> source for OpenJDK from, and don't claim that OpenJDK is your work, or
> anything to do with you.
> 
> So you *can* do this. The question really is - *should* you do this.
> And there are very good reasons for not bundling a platform along with
> an application. I'm sure other people will chime in with other very
> good reasons why not to do this, but:
> 
> Field Support Overhead. This is a huge one. You can't possibly test
> your app+JRE bundle on every conceivable machine configuration that
> your customers will have. Yet, by shipping a combined app+JRE, you
> have made your company responsible for support of that combined bundle
> in the eyes of your customers. The costs of servicing support requests
> from your customers will increase enormously if you are shipping a
> private JRE along with the app. If Windows is one of the platforms you
> need to support, then this problem becomes an absolute nightmare,
> especially if your customers are remote (and even worse if your
> customers are essentially corporate desktop users).
> 
> If you're absolutely set on going this route, take a look at the
> profit model for your app, and the support cost model. Work out how
> many additional support cases it would take before your profit margin
> is eaten up. If that number isn't very, very large, then don't do
> this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
> 
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry about the confusion I've made.
>> 
>> Basically, I would like to ship OpenJDK's JRE with my App, instead of
>> Oracle's JRE which requires a license/support fee.
>> 
>> Shipping OpenJDK with our app is purely for the convenient to our
>> customer.  There is no reason for us to modify OpenJDK
>> 
>> However, according to OpenJDK license which is GPLv2 with "Classpath"
>> Exception.  So my guess is we can ship OpenJDK with our app without
>> the obligation of open up our source code.
>> 
>> However, to be very sure, I  would like to ping this forum to see if
>> I miss any thing, and also to find out if any one are on the same
>> route
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> -Dan
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ben Evans
>> <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Dan,
>>> 
>>> Your mails are quite hard to understand (and I'm guessing English
>>> isn't your first language).
>>> 
>>> Could you try explaining again exactly what you want to do and why you
>>> want to bundle a JRE or JDK with your app?
>>> 
>>> Are you making modifications to OpenJDK? Or is your application just a
>>> Java-based app and you want to ship a JRE for convenience?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Ben
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
>>>> with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.
>>>> 
>>>> -D
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
>>>>>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
>>>>>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 



From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 12:00:42 2011
From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:00:42 +0100
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Geir,

Well, we don't know what Dan's precise use case is (and yes the details do
matter here) but I have many examples of software delivery media which
contained both unmodified GPL binaries and proprietary software binaries.

Are you claiming that this delivery mode is essentially infringing? I'd like
to hear your reasoning for claiming that - I don't think I've heard that
reading before.

Thanks,

Ben

On Oct 7, 2011 11:41 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir at pobox.com> wrote:

> have you read the GPL recently?
>
> geir
>
> On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Ben Evans wrote:
>
> > First of all, IANAL.
> >
> > Having said that, if you aren't modifying the OpenJDK then all you are
> > doing is bundling a piece of unmodified GPL software into the same
> > delivery mechanism as your proprietary application. Which should be
> > fine - just include the GPL, a README which explains where to get the
> > source for OpenJDK from, and don't claim that OpenJDK is your work, or
> > anything to do with you.
> >
> > So you *can* do this. The question really is - *should* you do this.
> > And there are very good reasons for not bundling a platform along with
> > an application. I'm sure other people will chime in with other very
> > good reasons why not to do this, but:
> >
> > Field Support Overhead. This is a huge one. You can't possibly test
> > your app+JRE bundle on every conceivable machine configuration that
> > your customers will have. Yet, by shipping a combined app+JRE, you
> > have made your company responsible for support of that combined bundle
> > in the eyes of your customers. The costs of servicing support requests
> > from your customers will increase enormously if you are shipping a
> > private JRE along with the app. If Windows is one of the platforms you
> > need to support, then this problem becomes an absolute nightmare,
> > especially if your customers are remote (and even worse if your
> > customers are essentially corporate desktop users).
> >
> > If you're absolutely set on going this route, take a look at the
> > profit model for your app, and the support cost model. Work out how
> > many additional support cases it would take before your profit margin
> > is eaten up. If that number isn't very, very large, then don't do
> > this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry about the confusion I've made.
> >>
> >> Basically, I would like to ship OpenJDK's JRE with my App, instead of
> >> Oracle's JRE which requires a license/support fee.
> >>
> >> Shipping OpenJDK with our app is purely for the convenient to our
> >> customer.  There is no reason for us to modify OpenJDK
> >>
> >> However, according to OpenJDK license which is GPLv2 with "Classpath"
> >> Exception.  So my guess is we can ship OpenJDK with our app without
> >> the obligation of open up our source code.
> >>
> >> However, to be very sure, I  would like to ping this forum to see if
> >> I miss any thing, and also to find out if any one are on the same
> >> route
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ben Evans
> >> <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Dan,
> >>>
> >>> Your mails are quite hard to understand (and I'm guessing English
> >>> isn't your first language).
> >>>
> >>> Could you try explaining again exactly what you want to do and why you
> >>> want to bundle a JRE or JDK with your app?
> >>>
> >>> Are you making modifications to OpenJDK? Or is your application just a
> >>> Java-based app and you want to ship a JRE for convenience?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Ben
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
> >>>> with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.
> >>>>
> >>>> -D
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK
> with
> >>>>>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
> >>>>>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>


From geir at pobox.com  Fri Oct  7 12:10:51 2011
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:10:51 -0400
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>

I think I read too quickly and I think you're right as long as the bundling is a distribution convenience rather than some kind of "combined" work (modified or unmodified...)

geir


On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Ben Evans wrote:

> Hi Geir,
> 
> Well, we don't know what Dan's precise use case is (and yes the details do matter here) but I have many examples of software delivery media which contained both unmodified GPL binaries and proprietary software binaries.
> 
> Are you claiming that this delivery mode is essentially infringing? I'd like to hear your reasoning for claiming that - I don't think I've heard that reading before.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> On Oct 7, 2011 11:41 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir at pobox.com> wrote:
> have you read the GPL recently?
> 
> geir
> 
> On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Ben Evans wrote:
> 
> > First of all, IANAL.
> >
> > Having said that, if you aren't modifying the OpenJDK then all you are
> > doing is bundling a piece of unmodified GPL software into the same
> > delivery mechanism as your proprietary application. Which should be
> > fine - just include the GPL, a README which explains where to get the
> > source for OpenJDK from, and don't claim that OpenJDK is your work, or
> > anything to do with you.
> >
> > So you *can* do this. The question really is - *should* you do this.
> > And there are very good reasons for not bundling a platform along with
> > an application. I'm sure other people will chime in with other very
> > good reasons why not to do this, but:
> >
> > Field Support Overhead. This is a huge one. You can't possibly test
> > your app+JRE bundle on every conceivable machine configuration that
> > your customers will have. Yet, by shipping a combined app+JRE, you
> > have made your company responsible for support of that combined bundle
> > in the eyes of your customers. The costs of servicing support requests
> > from your customers will increase enormously if you are shipping a
> > private JRE along with the app. If Windows is one of the platforms you
> > need to support, then this problem becomes an absolute nightmare,
> > especially if your customers are remote (and even worse if your
> > customers are essentially corporate desktop users).
> >
> > If you're absolutely set on going this route, take a look at the
> > profit model for your app, and the support cost model. Work out how
> > many additional support cases it would take before your profit margin
> > is eaten up. If that number isn't very, very large, then don't do
> > this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry about the confusion I've made.
> >>
> >> Basically, I would like to ship OpenJDK's JRE with my App, instead of
> >> Oracle's JRE which requires a license/support fee.
> >>
> >> Shipping OpenJDK with our app is purely for the convenient to our
> >> customer.  There is no reason for us to modify OpenJDK
> >>
> >> However, according to OpenJDK license which is GPLv2 with "Classpath"
> >> Exception.  So my guess is we can ship OpenJDK with our app without
> >> the obligation of open up our source code.
> >>
> >> However, to be very sure, I  would like to ping this forum to see if
> >> I miss any thing, and also to find out if any one are on the same
> >> route
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ben Evans
> >> <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Dan,
> >>>
> >>> Your mails are quite hard to understand (and I'm guessing English
> >>> isn't your first language).
> >>>
> >>> Could you try explaining again exactly what you want to do and why you
> >>> want to bundle a JRE or JDK with your app?
> >>>
> >>> Are you making modifications to OpenJDK? Or is your application just a
> >>> Java-based app and you want to ship a JRE for convenience?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Ben
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
> >>>> with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.
> >>>>
> >>>> -D
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
> >>>>>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
> >>>>>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> 



From dantran at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 16:08:26 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:08:26 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>

here is my precise use case:

   - InstallAnywhere with embed JRE to deploy a Tomcat application +
JRE + my webapp into a customer server ( linux, windows)


-Dan

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir at pobox.com> wrote:
> I think I read too quickly and I think you're right as long as the bundling is a distribution convenience rather than some kind of "combined" work (modified or unmodified...)
>
> geir
>
>
> On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Ben Evans wrote:
>
>> Hi Geir,
>>
>> Well, we don't know what Dan's precise use case is (and yes the details do matter here) but I have many examples of software delivery media which contained both unmodified GPL binaries and proprietary software binaries.
>>
>> Are you claiming that this delivery mode is essentially infringing? I'd like to hear your reasoning for claiming that - I don't think I've heard that reading before.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2011 11:41 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir at pobox.com> wrote:
>> have you read the GPL recently?
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Ben Evans wrote:
>>
>> > First of all, IANAL.
>> >
>> > Having said that, if you aren't modifying the OpenJDK then all you are
>> > doing is bundling a piece of unmodified GPL software into the same
>> > delivery mechanism as your proprietary application. Which should be
>> > fine - just include the GPL, a README which explains where to get the
>> > source for OpenJDK from, and don't claim that OpenJDK is your work, or
>> > anything to do with you.
>> >
>> > So you *can* do this. The question really is - *should* you do this.
>> > And there are very good reasons for not bundling a platform along with
>> > an application. I'm sure other people will chime in with other very
>> > good reasons why not to do this, but:
>> >
>> > Field Support Overhead. This is a huge one. You can't possibly test
>> > your app+JRE bundle on every conceivable machine configuration that
>> > your customers will have. Yet, by shipping a combined app+JRE, you
>> > have made your company responsible for support of that combined bundle
>> > in the eyes of your customers. The costs of servicing support requests
>> > from your customers will increase enormously if you are shipping a
>> > private JRE along with the app. If Windows is one of the platforms you
>> > need to support, then this problem becomes an absolute nightmare,
>> > especially if your customers are remote (and even worse if your
>> > customers are essentially corporate desktop users).
>> >
>> > If you're absolutely set on going this route, take a look at the
>> > profit model for your app, and the support cost model. Work out how
>> > many additional support cases it would take before your profit margin
>> > is eaten up. If that number isn't very, very large, then don't do
>> > this.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Ben
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Sorry about the confusion I've made.
>> >>
>> >> Basically, I would like to ship OpenJDK's JRE with my App, instead of
>> >> Oracle's JRE which requires a license/support fee.
>> >>
>> >> Shipping OpenJDK with our app is purely for the convenient to our
>> >> customer. ?There is no reason for us to modify OpenJDK
>> >>
>> >> However, according to OpenJDK license which is GPLv2 with "Classpath"
>> >> Exception. ?So my guess is we can ship OpenJDK with our app without
>> >> the obligation of open up our source code.
>> >>
>> >> However, to be very sure, I ?would like to ping this forum to see if
>> >> I miss any thing, and also to find out if any one are on the same
>> >> route
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >> -Dan
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ben Evans
>> >> <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Hi Dan,
>> >>>
>> >>> Your mails are quite hard to understand (and I'm guessing English
>> >>> isn't your first language).
>> >>>
>> >>> Could you try explaining again exactly what you want to do and why you
>> >>> want to bundle a JRE or JDK with your app?
>> >>>
>> >>> Are you making modifications to OpenJDK? Or is your application just a
>> >>> Java-based app and you want to ship a JRE for convenience?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Ben
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
>> >>>> with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -D
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
>> >>>>>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
>> >>>>>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
>


From dantran at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 18:53:02 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:53:02 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnEuccwqWsjm2yr8Afr_LeZSM4brvG50TAygRGaa-kO2BQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the clarification about the possibility of shipping
OpenJDK's JRE with our project.

Oracle JRE ( 1.6)  has been very good for us, so far we have no major
concern from support perspective.

So we hope OpenJDK 1.7 has the same level of quality. It is up to our
QA to bless this route

Thanks

-D


On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Ben Evans
<benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, IANAL.
>
> Having said that, if you aren't modifying the OpenJDK then all you are
> doing is bundling a piece of unmodified GPL software into the same
> delivery mechanism as your proprietary application. Which should be
> fine - just include the GPL, a README which explains where to get the
> source for OpenJDK from, and don't claim that OpenJDK is your work, or
> anything to do with you.
>
> So you *can* do this. The question really is - *should* you do this.
> And there are very good reasons for not bundling a platform along with
> an application. I'm sure other people will chime in with other very
> good reasons why not to do this, but:
>
> Field Support Overhead. This is a huge one. You can't possibly test
> your app+JRE bundle on every conceivable machine configuration that
> your customers will have. Yet, by shipping a combined app+JRE, you
> have made your company responsible for support of that combined bundle
> in the eyes of your customers. The costs of servicing support requests
> from your customers will increase enormously if you are shipping a
> private JRE along with the app. If Windows is one of the platforms you
> need to support, then this problem becomes an absolute nightmare,
> especially if your customers are remote (and even worse if your
> customers are essentially corporate desktop users).
>
> If you're absolutely set on going this route, take a look at the
> profit model for your app, and the support cost model. Work out how
> many additional support cases it would take before your profit margin
> is eaten up. If that number isn't very, very large, then don't do
> this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry about the confusion I've made.
>>
>> Basically, I would like to ship OpenJDK's JRE with my App, instead of
>> Oracle's JRE which requires a license/support fee.
>>
>> Shipping OpenJDK with our app is purely for the convenient to our
>> customer. ?There is no reason for us to modify OpenJDK
>>
>> However, according to OpenJDK license which is GPLv2 with "Classpath"
>> Exception. ?So my guess is we can ship OpenJDK with our app without
>> the obligation of open up our source code.
>>
>> However, to be very sure, I ?would like to ping this forum to see if
>> I miss any thing, and also to find out if any one are on the same
>> route
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ben Evans
>> <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> Your mails are quite hard to understand (and I'm guessing English
>>> isn't your first language).
>>>
>>> Could you try explaining again exactly what you want to do and why you
>>> want to bundle a JRE or JDK with your app?
>>>
>>> Are you making modifications to OpenJDK? Or is your application just a
>>> Java-based app and you want to ship a JRE for convenience?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
>>>> with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.
>>>>
>>>> -D
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
>>>>>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
>>>>>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


From georges.saab at oracle.com  Fri Oct  7 19:44:03 2011
From: georges.saab at oracle.com (Georges Saab)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:44:03 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>

Hi Dan --

   While I certainly don't want to discourage you from looking at OpenJDK, it sounds to me like you are 
looking at it because you think the OracleJDK is expensive for support and license for redistribution?

    If so (and you have not already done so) I would suggest that you check the OracleJDK BCL on the 
free ('gratis') version, which has clauses explaining the rights for redistribution.  

    Have a look here for more info.

   /GES


On 7 okt 2011, at 09:08, Dan Tran wrote:

> here is my precise use case:
> 
>   - InstallAnywhere with embed JRE to deploy a Tomcat application +
> JRE + my webapp into a customer server ( linux, windows)
> 
> 
> -Dan
> 
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir at pobox.com> wrote:
>> I think I read too quickly and I think you're right as long as the bundling is a distribution convenience rather than some kind of "combined" work (modified or unmodified...)
>> 
>> geir
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Ben Evans wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Geir,
>>> 
>>> Well, we don't know what Dan's precise use case is (and yes the details do matter here) but I have many examples of software delivery media which contained both unmodified GPL binaries and proprietary software binaries.
>>> 
>>> Are you claiming that this delivery mode is essentially infringing? I'd like to hear your reasoning for claiming that - I don't think I've heard that reading before.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Ben
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 7, 2011 11:41 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir at pobox.com> wrote:
>>> have you read the GPL recently?
>>> 
>>> geir
>>> 
>>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Ben Evans wrote:
>>> 
>>>> First of all, IANAL.
>>>> 
>>>> Having said that, if you aren't modifying the OpenJDK then all you are
>>>> doing is bundling a piece of unmodified GPL software into the same
>>>> delivery mechanism as your proprietary application. Which should be
>>>> fine - just include the GPL, a README which explains where to get the
>>>> source for OpenJDK from, and don't claim that OpenJDK is your work, or
>>>> anything to do with you.
>>>> 
>>>> So you *can* do this. The question really is - *should* you do this.
>>>> And there are very good reasons for not bundling a platform along with
>>>> an application. I'm sure other people will chime in with other very
>>>> good reasons why not to do this, but:
>>>> 
>>>> Field Support Overhead. This is a huge one. You can't possibly test
>>>> your app+JRE bundle on every conceivable machine configuration that
>>>> your customers will have. Yet, by shipping a combined app+JRE, you
>>>> have made your company responsible for support of that combined bundle
>>>> in the eyes of your customers. The costs of servicing support requests
>>>> from your customers will increase enormously if you are shipping a
>>>> private JRE along with the app. If Windows is one of the platforms you
>>>> need to support, then this problem becomes an absolute nightmare,
>>>> especially if your customers are remote (and even worse if your
>>>> customers are essentially corporate desktop users).
>>>> 
>>>> If you're absolutely set on going this route, take a look at the
>>>> profit model for your app, and the support cost model. Work out how
>>>> many additional support cases it would take before your profit margin
>>>> is eaten up. If that number isn't very, very large, then don't do
>>>> this.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Ben
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry about the confusion I've made.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Basically, I would like to ship OpenJDK's JRE with my App, instead of
>>>>> Oracle's JRE which requires a license/support fee.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Shipping OpenJDK with our app is purely for the convenient to our
>>>>> customer.  There is no reason for us to modify OpenJDK
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, according to OpenJDK license which is GPLv2 with "Classpath"
>>>>> Exception.  So my guess is we can ship OpenJDK with our app without
>>>>> the obligation of open up our source code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, to be very sure, I  would like to ping this forum to see if
>>>>> I miss any thing, and also to find out if any one are on the same
>>>>> route
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Dan
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ben Evans
>>>>> <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your mails are quite hard to understand (and I'm guessing English
>>>>>> isn't your first language).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Could you try explaining again exactly what you want to do and why you
>>>>>> want to bundle a JRE or JDK with your app?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are you making modifications to OpenJDK? Or is your application just a
>>>>>> Java-based app and you want to ship a JRE for convenience?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Dan Tran <dantran at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ie, little interests on commercial company willing to ship openjdk
>>>>>>> with their app and but ship with Oracle JRE and pay for license fee.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -D
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Since I found so little discussion about ability to ship OpenJDK with
>>>>>>>>> a commercial app ( instead of Oracle JRE, and not paying for license
>>>>>>>>> fee ), it sounds like OpenJDK 7 is NOT ready for prime time yet?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What do you means by 'not ready for prime time yet' ?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 



From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct  7 20:26:01 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:26:01 -0300
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H4hfSpJZgdB_+KCOBrfFqJ3WArPrKa6NzqTzEtBqr2hYQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:44, Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com> wrote:
> ?Have a look here for more info.
>
> ? /GES

I see a white space :)

FC


From georges.saab at oracle.com  Fri Oct  7 21:45:41 2011
From: georges.saab at oracle.com (Georges Saab)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:45:41 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CACGw4H4hfSpJZgdB_+KCOBrfFqJ3WArPrKa6NzqTzEtBqr2hYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H4hfSpJZgdB_+KCOBrfFqJ3WArPrKa6NzqTzEtBqr2hYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8C1F1DA8-56BC-43A0-8058-12CA56DA4AB6@oracle.com>

 Have a look here [1] for more info.

 [1]  http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html

   :)



On 7 okt 2011, at 13:26, Fernando Cassia wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:44, Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com> wrote:
>>  Have a look here for more info.
>> 
>>   /GES
> 
> I see a white space :)
> 
> FC



From dantran at gmail.com  Sat Oct  8 01:46:03 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:46:03 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <8C1F1DA8-56BC-43A0-8058-12CA56DA4AB6@oracle.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H4hfSpJZgdB_+KCOBrfFqJ3WArPrKa6NzqTzEtBqr2hYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C1F1DA8-56BC-43A0-8058-12CA56DA4AB6@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnF=mxzCjw_JHY0MJyxEWsY+er7D-S5EVyHrj40i72gz9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dont think we can ship Oracle JRE with this statement below

"2. LICENSE TO USE. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement   including, but not limited to, the Java Technology
Restrictions of the Supplemental License Terms, Oracle grants you a
non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without license fees
to reproduce and use internally the Software complete and unmodified
for the sole purpose of running Programs. THE LICENSE SET FORTH IN
THIS SECTION 2 DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES. YOUR RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES ARE AS SET FORTH IN
THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL LICENSES FOR DEVELOPERS
AND PUBLISHERS."


-Dan



On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com> wrote:
> ?Have a look here [1]?for more info.
> ?[1] ?http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html
> ? ?:)
>
>
> On 7 okt 2011, at 13:26, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:44, Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> ?Have a look here for more info.
>
> ? /GES
>
> I see a white space :)
>
> FC
>
>


From georges.saab at oracle.com  Sat Oct  8 05:28:35 2011
From: georges.saab at oracle.com (Georges Saab)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 22:28:35 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAPCjjnF=mxzCjw_JHY0MJyxEWsY+er7D-S5EVyHrj40i72gz9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H4hfSpJZgdB_+KCOBrfFqJ3WArPrKa6NzqTzEtBqr2hYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C1F1DA8-56BC-43A0-8058-12CA56DA4AB6@oracle.com>
	<CAPCjjnF=mxzCjw_JHY0MJyxEWsY+er7D-S5EVyHrj40i72gz9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C02C1FDD-466D-4157-852D-9D96221CBF18@oracle.com>

Dan --

   This FAQ [1] may help make things clearer for you.

   /GES


[1] http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/java/oracle-javase-faq-398492.pdf



On 7 okt 2011, at 18:46, Dan Tran wrote:

> Dont think we can ship Oracle JRE with this statement below
> 
> "2. LICENSE TO USE. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
> Agreement   including, but not limited to, the Java Technology
> Restrictions of the Supplemental License Terms, Oracle grants you a
> non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without license fees
> to reproduce and use internally the Software complete and unmodified
> for the sole purpose of running Programs. THE LICENSE SET FORTH IN
> THIS SECTION 2 DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES. YOUR RIGHTS
> AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES ARE AS SET FORTH IN
> THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL LICENSES FOR DEVELOPERS
> AND PUBLISHERS."
> 
> 
> -Dan
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com> wrote:
>>  Have a look here [1] for more info.
>>  [1]  http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html
>>    :)
>> 
>> 
>> On 7 okt 2011, at 13:26, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:44, Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>  Have a look here for more info.
>> 
>>   /GES
>> 
>> I see a white space :)
>> 
>> FC
>> 
>> 



From dantran at gmail.com  Sat Oct  8 17:06:09 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:06:09 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <C02C1FDD-466D-4157-852D-9D96221CBF18@oracle.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFo8_q4NnOFn=Da5TxzJCg4FoVYQ7EYrbv_7YSjGgqxhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H4hfSpJZgdB_+KCOBrfFqJ3WArPrKa6NzqTzEtBqr2hYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C1F1DA8-56BC-43A0-8058-12CA56DA4AB6@oracle.com>
	<CAPCjjnF=mxzCjw_JHY0MJyxEWsY+er7D-S5EVyHrj40i72gz9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<C02C1FDD-466D-4157-852D-9D96221CBF18@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnGEU9q8C_HWZAmTVtPM6dmjbJYRb1AoJvc-30ihN5OAAQ@mail.gmail.com>

ah, base on the FAQ, we can ship Oracle JRE with standalone software
app ( customer will need to perform installation ),

However If the software is embedded in an appliance and ship together
to customer, a fee is required

Thanks

-Dan

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com> wrote:
> Dan --
> ? ?This FAQ [1] may help make things clearer for you.
> ? ?/GES
>
> [1]?http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/java/oracle-javase-faq-398492.pdf
>
>
>
> On 7 okt 2011, at 18:46, Dan Tran wrote:
>
> Dont think we can ship Oracle JRE with this statement below
>
> "2. LICENSE TO USE. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
> Agreement ??including, but not limited to, the Java Technology
> Restrictions of the Supplemental License Terms, Oracle grants you a
> non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without license fees
> to reproduce and use internally the Software complete and unmodified
> for the sole purpose of running Programs. THE LICENSE SET FORTH IN
> THIS SECTION 2 DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES. YOUR RIGHTS
> AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES ARE AS SET FORTH IN
> THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL LICENSES FOR DEVELOPERS
> AND PUBLISHERS."
>
>
> -Dan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
> ?Have a look here [1]?for more info.
>
> ?[1] ?http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html
>
> ? ?:)
>
>
> On 7 okt 2011, at 13:26, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:44, Georges Saab <georges.saab at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> ?Have a look here for more info.
>
> ? /GES
>
> I see a white space :)
>
> FC
>
>
>
>


From donald.smith at oracle.com  Sat Oct  8 17:21:24 2011
From: donald.smith at oracle.com (Donald Smith)
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 13:21:24 -0400
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAPCjjnGEU9q8C_HWZAmTVtPM6dmjbJYRb1AoJvc-30ihN5OAAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>	<CACGw4H4hfSpJZgdB_+KCOBrfFqJ3WArPrKa6NzqTzEtBqr2hYQ@mail.gmail.com>	<8C1F1DA8-56BC-43A0-8058-12CA56DA4AB6@oracle.com>	<CAPCjjnF=mxzCjw_JHY0MJyxEWsY+er7D-S5EVyHrj40i72gz9Q@mail.gmail.com>	<C02C1FDD-466D-4157-852D-9D96221CBF18@oracle.com>
	<CAPCjjnGEU9q8C_HWZAmTVtPM6dmjbJYRb1AoJvc-30ihN5OAAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E908694.30606@oracle.com>

Just to be clear - indeed - you should definitely consult with a lawyer 
as no one could ever offer appropriate legal advice over email, let 
alone a mailing list, but there are definitely many scenarios where 
redistribution is free.

  - Don

On 08/10/2011 1:06 PM, Dan Tran wrote:
> ah, base on the FAQ, we can ship Oracle JRE with standalone software
> app ( customer will need to perform installation ),
>
> However If the software is embedded in an appliance and ship together
> to customer, a fee is required
>
> Thanks
>
> -Dan
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Georges Saab<georges.saab at oracle.com>  wrote:
>> Dan --
>>     This FAQ [1] may help make things clearer for you.
>>     /GES
>>
>> [1] http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/java/oracle-javase-faq-398492.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 okt 2011, at 18:46, Dan Tran wrote:
>>
>> Dont think we can ship Oracle JRE with this statement below
>>
>> "2. LICENSE TO USE. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
>> Agreement   including, but not limited to, the Java Technology
>> Restrictions of the Supplemental License Terms, Oracle grants you a
>> non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without license fees
>> to reproduce and use internally the Software complete and unmodified
>> for the sole purpose of running Programs. THE LICENSE SET FORTH IN
>> THIS SECTION 2 DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES. YOUR RIGHTS
>> AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES ARE AS SET FORTH IN
>> THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL LICENSES FOR DEVELOPERS
>> AND PUBLISHERS."
>>
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Georges Saab<georges.saab at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>   Have a look here [1] for more info.
>>
>>   [1]  http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html
>>
>>     :)
>>
>>
>> On 7 okt 2011, at 13:26, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:44, Georges Saab<georges.saab at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>
>>   Have a look here for more info.
>>
>>    /GES
>>
>> I see a white space :)
>>
>> FC
>>
>>
>>
>>


From jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com  Mon Oct 17 16:44:58 2011
From: jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com (Jonathan Gibbons)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:44:58 -0700
Subject: OpenJDK Bylaws?
Message-ID: <4E9C5B8A.8030104@oracle.com>

Is there a page that gives the current (ratified) version of the OpenJDK 
Bylaws?

This page says the Bylaws have been ratified
http://openjdk.java.net/poll/bylaws-ratification/

... but the latest version of the Bylaws, referenced from that page, 
still says
"Draft"
http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-10

For those that don't want to go through the details on the ratification 
page,
it would make more sense to have a page that has the currently approved
bylaws, titled as such.

-- Jon


From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Mon Oct 17 17:06:18 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:06:18 +0200
Subject: Rhino build support
Message-ID: <CALyUpY3SkedNrrtmyA2+FrwwvO4z1fyP=1rJZqFKvNs06mCKsw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi to all,

Moving these questions to discuss, since I didn't get reply on bsd and
macosx ports lists :

I couldn't find officials indications or documentation on how to add
Rhino from Mozilla to OpenJDK build.

The only source of information found was IcedTea 1.7 (1.14) with
patches/rhino.patch

1) CLOSED_SRC test removed (jdk/make/com/sun/Makefile)

-ifndef OPENJDK
-  ORG_EXISTS := $(call DirExists,$(CLOSED_SRC)/share/classes/sun/org,,)
-  ifneq ("$(ORG_EXISTS)", "")
-    SCRIPT_SUBDIR = script
-  endif
-endif

2) rhino.jar added to build (jdk/make/com/sun/script/Makefile)

3) sun.org.mozilla.javascript.internal.* moved to
sun.org.mozilla.javascript.*
(jdk/src/share/classes/com/sun/script/javascript/*)

4) repackaged rhino.jar copied under JRE /lib/rhino.jar
(jdk/make/common/Release.gmk)

5) rhino.jar added to runtime jars (hotspot/src/share/vm/runtime/os.cpp)

All of these could be done on bsd-port and macosx-port and may be others ports.

Questions :

1) Did there is any reason why Rhino is not included in bsd-port (and
so macosx-port) like licence problems ?

2) What's the recommanded Mozilla renaming named ?


If there is no licence problem, I may add these to openjdk-osx-build
project for now, but it will be better to get them in bsd and
macosx-ports.

Cheers


From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Mon Oct 17 19:00:27 2011
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:00:27 -0700
Subject: OpenJDK Bylaws?
In-Reply-To: jonathan.gibbons@oracle.com; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:44:58 PDT;
	<4E9C5B8A.8030104@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20111017190027.44ACCCA9@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2011/10/17 9:44 -0700, jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com:
> Is there a page that gives the current (ratified) version of the OpenJDK
> Bylaws?
> 
> This page says the Bylaws have been ratified
> http://openjdk.java.net/poll/bylaws-ratification/
> 
> ... but the latest version of the Bylaws, referenced from that page, still says
> "Draft"
> http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-10
> 
> For those that don't want to go through the details on the ratification page,
> it would make more sense to have a page that has the currently approved
> bylaws, titled as such.

Agreed.

The Bylaws have been ratified but not yet installed.  That should happen
soon -- we're just finishing up some process details -- and when it does
an official "Current Bylaws" page will be created.  Its content will be
no different than Draft 10, except that it won't be labeled a draft.

- Mark


From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Tue Oct 18 16:22:08 2011
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:22:08 -0700
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: henri.gomez@gmail.com; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:06:18 +0200;
	<CALyUpY3SkedNrrtmyA2+FrwwvO4z1fyP=1rjzqfkvns06mcksw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2011/10/17 10:06 -0700, henri.gomez at gmail.com:
> ...
> 
> I couldn't find officials indications or documentation on how to add
> Rhino from Mozilla to OpenJDK build.
> 
> Questions :
> 
> 1) Did there is any reason why Rhino is not included in bsd-port (and
> so macosx-port) like licence problems ?

Yes, license problems.  Rhino is licensed under the MPL,
which is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL.

- Mark (IANAL)


From mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org  Tue Oct 18 17:01:31 2011
From: mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org (Mike Milinkovich)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:01:31 -0400
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: henri.gomez@gmail.com; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:06:18 +0200;
	<CALyUpY3SkedNrrtmyA2+FrwwvO4z1fyP=1rjzqfkvns06mcksw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <00c601cc8db7$95e66e20$c1b34a60$@eclipse.org>

Mark,

>From http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/download.html 

"The source code for Rhino is available under MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0 license."

My guess is that it may be the lack of a Classpath Exception which is the
real culprit.

Thankfully, IANAL either.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:discuss-
> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of mark.reinhold at oracle.com
> Sent: October-18-11 12:22 PM
> To: henri.gomez at gmail.com
> Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net; macosx-port-dev at openjdk.java.net; bsd-
> port-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: Rhino build support
> 
> 2011/10/17 10:06 -0700, henri.gomez at gmail.com:
> > ...
> >
> > I couldn't find officials indications or documentation on how to add
> > Rhino from Mozilla to OpenJDK build.
> >
> > Questions :
> >
> > 1) Did there is any reason why Rhino is not included in bsd-port (and
> > so macosx-port) like licence problems ?
> 
> Yes, license problems.  Rhino is licensed under the MPL, which is
> fundamentally incompatible with the GPL.
> 
> - Mark (IANAL)




From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Tue Oct 18 17:39:17 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:39:17 +0200
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <CALyUpY3SkedNrrtmyA2+FrwwvO4z1fyP=1rjzqfkvns06mcksw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY1egpaEJZ0Q-AWbFABYEUNc-ANwCQ0ZxBafb-bEeWahAw@mail.gmail.com>

> Yes, license problems. ?Rhino is licensed under the MPL,
> which is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL.

Thanks Mark

OpenJDK is GPL
Rhino is MPL

But when Oracle provide its JDK, you include both of them.

Which licence should be used by OpenJDK 'packagers/bundlers' so ?


From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Tue Oct 18 17:49:50 2011
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:49:50 -0700
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:01:31 EDT;
	<00c601cc8db7$95e66e20$c1b34a60$@eclipse.org>
Message-ID: <20111018174950.39EFB1041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2011/10/18 10:01 -0700, mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org:
> From http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/download.html 
> 
> "The source code for Rhino is available under MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0 license."
> 
> My guess is that it may be the lack of a Classpath Exception which is the
> real culprit.

Right.

(It's been four years since the big code scrub, so I've forgotten
 a lot of the details.)

- Mark (still NAL)


From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Tue Oct 18 17:51:07 2011
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:51:07 -0700
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: henri.gomez@gmail.com; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:39:17 +0200;
	<CALyUpY1egpaEJZ0Q-AWbFABYEUNc-ANwCQ0ZxBafb-bEeWahAw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20111018175107.60F941041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2011/10/18 10:39 -0700, henri.gomez at gmail.com:
> OpenJDK is GPL
> Rhino is MPL
> 
> But when Oracle provide its JDK, you include both of them.
> 
> Which licence should be used by OpenJDK 'packagers/bundlers' so ?

I suggest you ask a lawyer.

- Mark


From mark at klomp.org  Tue Oct 18 18:01:30 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:01:30 +0200
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <1318960890.8669.60.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 09:22 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2011/10/17 10:06 -0700, henri.gomez at gmail.com:
> > ...
> > 
> > I couldn't find officials indications or documentation on how to add
> > Rhino from Mozilla to OpenJDK build.
> > 
> > Questions :
> > 
> > 1) Did there is any reason why Rhino is not included in bsd-port (and
> > so macosx-port) like licence problems ?
> 
> Yes, license problems.  Rhino is licensed under the MPL,
> which is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL.

Rhino is available under the MPL/GPL dual license, so should be GPL
compatible. And GPL+Exception should be compatible with MPL (if the MPL
part is kept as a separate module). If that isn't enough for some
people, we could see whether upstream wants Rhino to upgrade to MPLv2
(which would add all secondary MPLv2 licenses too, so LGPL and AGPL dual
licenses next to the current MPL/GPL) [*].

I talked to Luis Villa and Gervase Markham about a possible upgrade and
the implications. They have both worked on MPLv2 and were very
supportive (but of course it will be up to the actual upstream Rhino
developers to decide whether or not to upgrade).

I think it would be really beneficial to make upstream, ClosedJDK,
OpenJDK and IcedTea share the exact same version of Rhino. Currently
IcedTea uses the (latest) upstream version available, but that might
lead to subtle incompatibilities.

But I couldn't find the actual Rhino source code used in ClosedJDK.
Where is that currently available?

Making sure all our work on Rhino, whether it is for ClosedJDK, OpenJDK,
IcedTea, or the bsd/macosx-port is done upstream seems like a good idea
in general.

Thanks,

Mark

[*]
http://opensource.com/law/11/9/mpl-20-copyleft-and-license-compatibility


From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Tue Oct 18 18:08:33 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:08:33 +0200
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <20111018175107.60F941041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <CALyUpY1egpaEJZ0Q-AWbFABYEUNc-ANwCQ0ZxBafb-bEeWahAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111018175107.60F941041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY2FZMcBeg-O5YuPmrNZopJP-Dp+FX+u_4+D0436F6Ue5A@mail.gmail.com>

> I suggest you ask a lawyer.

Thanks for the suggestion but individuals like me don't have lawyers
available so easily, especially those involved in licences issues :)

Usually there is people very aware of licences problematics in OSS
community, that's why I'm trying to get answers here :)

In IcedTea FAQ (http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions)

"What license is IcedTea released under?
IcedTea is released under the GPL2 + Classpath exception, which is the
same license as both GNU Classpath and OpenJDK.
"

IcedTea include Rhino, so I guess GPL2 + Classpath may be a valid licence.

If IcedTea guys are around, advices more than welcomed


From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Tue Oct 18 18:10:48 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:10:48 +0200
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <1318960890.8669.60.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
References: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<1318960890.8669.60.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY00ckkGMPyt92PQPJg7BnLDmJ1_11NrC94i-LGxEQxNqw@mail.gmail.com>

Mark (Wielaard)

in case of openjdk-osx-build there is about 0 closed source, since its
full build process is available on GoogleCode.

"Making sure all our work on Rhino, whether it is for ClosedJDK, OpenJDK,
IcedTea, or the bsd/macosx-port is done upstream seems like a good idea
in general."

Do you means, Rhino could be put back upstream ?

In the interim, do you think I could include it in my own builds (os/x port) ?

Cheers

2011/10/18 Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org>:
> On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 09:22 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>> 2011/10/17 10:06 -0700, henri.gomez at gmail.com:
>> > ...
>> >
>> > I couldn't find officials indications or documentation on how to add
>> > Rhino from Mozilla to OpenJDK build.
>> >
>> > Questions :
>> >
>> > 1) Did there is any reason why Rhino is not included in bsd-port (and
>> > so macosx-port) like licence problems ?
>>
>> Yes, license problems. ?Rhino is licensed under the MPL,
>> which is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL.
>
> Rhino is available under the MPL/GPL dual license, so should be GPL
> compatible. And GPL+Exception should be compatible with MPL (if the MPL
> part is kept as a separate module). If that isn't enough for some
> people, we could see whether upstream wants Rhino to upgrade to MPLv2
> (which would add all secondary MPLv2 licenses too, so LGPL and AGPL dual
> licenses next to the current MPL/GPL) [*].
>
> I talked to Luis Villa and Gervase Markham about a possible upgrade and
> the implications. They have both worked on MPLv2 and were very
> supportive (but of course it will be up to the actual upstream Rhino
> developers to decide whether or not to upgrade).
>
> I think it would be really beneficial to make upstream, ClosedJDK,
> OpenJDK and IcedTea share the exact same version of Rhino. Currently
> IcedTea uses the (latest) upstream version available, but that might
> lead to subtle incompatibilities.
>
> But I couldn't find the actual Rhino source code used in ClosedJDK.
> Where is that currently available?
>
> Making sure all our work on Rhino, whether it is for ClosedJDK, OpenJDK,
> IcedTea, or the bsd/macosx-port is done upstream seems like a good idea
> in general.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
> [*]
> http://opensource.com/law/11/9/mpl-20-copyleft-and-license-compatibility
>


From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Tue Oct 18 19:00:40 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:00:40 +0200
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <CAP7YuATaHsVq57_xcvmn2=Mn-53amCNTUxYZ3yS9jV0XfLhF6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALyUpY1egpaEJZ0Q-AWbFABYEUNc-ANwCQ0ZxBafb-bEeWahAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111018175107.60F941041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<CALyUpY2FZMcBeg-O5YuPmrNZopJP-Dp+FX+u_4+D0436F6Ue5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP7YuATaHsVq57_xcvmn2=Mn-53amCNTUxYZ3yS9jV0XfLhF6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY3bvSvZhAQT4N4vBjNg=G0=QmAB7+hN1QO-cFBHfuS0tQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Martijn

BTW, if Rhino should be bundled at higher level (i.e.: trunk), this
license discussion should be raised to upper level isn't it ?

2011/10/18 Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com>:
> Hi Henri,
>
> The EFF would also be a good place to ask and I'm working on trying to
> get some reasonably priced advice with some legal eagles I know in
> London, will post back if my new company can sponsor this.
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>
> On 18 October 2011 19:08, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I suggest you ask a lawyer.
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion but individuals like me don't have lawyers
>> available so easily, especially those involved in licences issues :)
>>
>> Usually there is people very aware of licences problematics in OSS
>> community, that's why I'm trying to get answers here :)
>>
>> In IcedTea FAQ (http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions)
>>
>> "What license is IcedTea released under?
>> IcedTea is released under the GPL2 + Classpath exception, which is the
>> same license as both GNU Classpath and OpenJDK.
>> "
>>
>> IcedTea include Rhino, so I guess GPL2 + Classpath may be a valid licence.
>>
>> If IcedTea guys are around, advices more than welcomed
>>
>


From mark at talios.com  Tue Oct 18 23:15:37 2011
From: mark at talios.com (Mark Derricutt)
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:15:37 +1300
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <E795DB03-3FF0-4965-8BFE-0183393EBE9E@talios.com>

One downside of not including it is that when you run "jrunscript" you get:

$ git develop* ? jrunscript 
script engine for language js can not be found

Jrunscript by default looks for a "js" engine and fails.  Unfortunately, we can't just take the latest Rhino from mozilla and put it on the class path as that, AFAIK doesn't include any of the javax.scripting extensions to make it work ( I have some recollection that either mozilla wouldn't accept the patches, or Sun didn't want to submit them - I could be grossly wrong here tho).

I see mentioned often that the source of the version of rhino used by the JDK isn't available anywhere either - so knowing just what patches were made is difficult.

Mark




On 19/10/2011, at 5:22 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:

> Yes, license problems.  Rhino is licensed under the MPL,
> which is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL.



From mark at klomp.org  Wed Oct 19 08:28:33 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:28:33 +0200
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <CALyUpY00ckkGMPyt92PQPJg7BnLDmJ1_11NrC94i-LGxEQxNqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<1318960890.8669.60.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<CALyUpY00ckkGMPyt92PQPJg7BnLDmJ1_11NrC94i-LGxEQxNqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1319012913.8669.68.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 20:10 +0200, Henri Gomez wrote:
> Mark (Wielaard)
>
> "Making sure all our work on Rhino, whether it is for ClosedJDK, OpenJDK,
> IcedTea, or the bsd/macosx-port is done upstream seems like a good idea
> in general."
> 
> Do you means, Rhino could be put back upstream ?

Yes.

> In the interim, do you think I could include it in my own builds (os/x port) ?

Yes, but that is what I am trying to prevent from happening :)
Note that IcedTea doesn't really "ship" Rhino itself. But it has
configure and build infrastructure to detect the system installed copy
of Rhino and transforms that so that it is available as separate module
under jre/lib.

IMHO if a JDK includes javax.script javascript support we should make
sure they include the same version and features. So we should try to
collect all versions/derivitives of Rhino being used with
OpenJDK/IcedTea/ClosedJDK and setup a canonical version (ideally just as
a branch of upstream Rhino). That would prevent subtle compatibility
issues.

I haven't been able to find the source code for the Rhino variant
shipped with the Oracle ClosedJDK. Since it is distributed under the
GPL/MPL, I assume the source code is somewhere for users to use, but I
might have missed where. Someone from Oracle (Mark R.?) might know where
the sources can be fetched from.

Thanks,

Mark


From linuxhippy at gmail.com  Fri Oct 21 09:02:30 2011
From: linuxhippy at gmail.com (Clemens Eisserer)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:02:30 +0200
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <4E908694.30606@oracle.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H4hfSpJZgdB_+KCOBrfFqJ3WArPrKa6NzqTzEtBqr2hYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C1F1DA8-56BC-43A0-8058-12CA56DA4AB6@oracle.com>
	<CAPCjjnF=mxzCjw_JHY0MJyxEWsY+er7D-S5EVyHrj40i72gz9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<C02C1FDD-466D-4157-852D-9D96221CBF18@oracle.com>
	<CAPCjjnGEU9q8C_HWZAmTVtPM6dmjbJYRb1AoJvc-30ihN5OAAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E908694.30606@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAFvQSYS3r5MRuE4MgZfXeFQvZ6m0JsqdheR5KVksFiMY7BjQsA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Does bundling oracle's jre really require a license?

Thanks, Clemens

2011/10/8 Donald Smith <donald.smith at oracle.com>:
> Just to be clear - indeed - you should definitely consult with a lawyer as
> no one could ever offer appropriate legal advice over email, let alone a
> mailing list, but there are definitely many scenarios where redistribution
> is free.
>
> ?- Don
>
> On 08/10/2011 1:06 PM, Dan Tran wrote:
>>
>> ah, base on the FAQ, we can ship Oracle JRE with standalone software
>> app ( customer will need to perform installation ),
>>
>> However If the software is embedded in an appliance and ship together
>> to customer, a fee is required
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Georges Saab<georges.saab at oracle.com>
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> Dan --
>>> ? ?This FAQ [1] may help make things clearer for you.
>>> ? ?/GES
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/java/oracle-javase-faq-398492.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 okt 2011, at 18:46, Dan Tran wrote:
>>>
>>> Dont think we can ship Oracle JRE with this statement below
>>>
>>> "2. LICENSE TO USE. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
>>> Agreement ? including, but not limited to, the Java Technology
>>> Restrictions of the Supplemental License Terms, Oracle grants you a
>>> non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without license fees
>>> to reproduce and use internally the Software complete and unmodified
>>> for the sole purpose of running Programs. THE LICENSE SET FORTH IN
>>> THIS SECTION 2 DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES. YOUR RIGHTS
>>> AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES ARE AS SET FORTH IN
>>> THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL LICENSES FOR DEVELOPERS
>>> AND PUBLISHERS."
>>>
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Georges Saab<georges.saab at oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?Have a look here [1] for more info.
>>>
>>> ?[1]
>>> ?http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html
>>>
>>> ? ?:)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 okt 2011, at 13:26, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:44, Georges Saab<georges.saab at oracle.com>
>>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> ?Have a look here for more info.
>>>
>>> ? /GES
>>>
>>> I see a white space :)
>>>
>>> FC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


From dalibor.topic at oracle.com  Fri Oct 21 09:46:22 2011
From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (Dalibor Topic)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:46:22 +0200
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAFvQSYS3r5MRuE4MgZfXeFQvZ6m0JsqdheR5KVksFiMY7BjQsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPCjjnEdxH_ibJfLsNHRkP4AWoDEyWJ5PXw_xQqFCeiTp0uGOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H4hfSpJZgdB_+KCOBrfFqJ3WArPrKa6NzqTzEtBqr2hYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C1F1DA8-56BC-43A0-8058-12CA56DA4AB6@oracle.com>
	<CAPCjjnF=mxzCjw_JHY0MJyxEWsY+er7D-S5EVyHrj40i72gz9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<C02C1FDD-466D-4157-852D-9D96221CBF18@oracle.com>
	<CAPCjjnGEU9q8C_HWZAmTVtPM6dmjbJYRb1AoJvc-30ihN5OAAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E908694.30606@oracle.com>
	<CAFvQSYS3r5MRuE4MgZfXeFQvZ6m0JsqdheR5KVksFiMY7BjQsA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EA13F6E.4090604@oracle.com>

On 10/21/11 11:02 AM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Does bundling oracle's jre really require a license?

You can find the Oracle Binary Code License Agreement for the Java SE 
Platform Products and JavaFX here:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html.

Oracle Java licensing and distribution FAQs are available at
http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/java/java-licensing-faqs-412039.pdf.

In addition, Georges also provided a link in this thread to the FAQs for 
Oracle Java SE Support, Oracle Java SE Advanced, and Oracle Java SE Suite, 
available here: 
http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/java/oracle-javase-faq-398492.pdf

cheers,
dalibor topic

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Dalibor Topic | Java F/OSS Ambassador
Phone: +494023646738 <tel:+494023646738> | Mobile: +491772664192 <tel:+491772664192>
Oracle Java Platform Group

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 Hamburg

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 M?nchen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRA 95603

Komplement?rin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: J?rgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven

Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment


From fweimer at bfk.de  Wed Oct 26 08:54:09 2011
From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:54:09 +0000
Subject: OpenJDK 7 source releases
Message-ID: <82bot43zgu.fsf@mid.bfk.de>

Will <http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/> be updated to include
security and other fixes, or is this source release set in stone?

I'm asking because I saw this in README-builds.html (from the jdk7u
forest):

| NOTE: The Complete OpenJDK Source Bundles
| <http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/> will contain the JAXP and
| JAX-WS sources.

If there are self-contained source releases, I wouldn't have to jump
through hoops to integrate the source drops.  But I don't want to miss
security fixes, either.

On the other hand, if <http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/> is not
supposed to receive future updates, it shouldn't be referenced from
README-builds.html, IMHO.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstra?e 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99


From dantran at gmail.com  Thu Oct 27 03:38:06 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:38:06 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <20111026201337.GJ594@rivendell.redhat.com>
References: <CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
	<20111026201337.GJ594@rivendell.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnHFM5wTp_=ODNu5imn4qfmFP-R=5aRT6ewR7yQmmNN_9A@mail.gmail.com>

If someone can point me to a prebuild of openjdk 1.7 for CentOS/Redhad
5.5+, it is very much appreciated. So far I only found discussion for
Ferora, ubuntu, etc

Thanks

-D

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
<ahughes at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12:44 Fri 07 Oct ? ? , Georges Saab wrote:
>> Hi Dan --
>>
>> ? ?While I certainly don't want to discourage you from looking at OpenJDK, it sounds to me like you are
>> looking at it because you think the OracleJDK is expensive for support and license for redistribution?
>>
>> ? ? If so (and you have not already done so) I would suggest that you check the OracleJDK BCL on the
>> free ('gratis') version, which has clauses explaining the rights for redistribution.
>>
>> ? ? Have a look here for more info.
>>
>
> Can you point to others who are distributing Oracle's proprietary binaries under the BCL?
> This was made possible by the DLJ but that's been retired: http://robilad.livejournal.com/90792.html
>
> In the case of OpenJDK, lots of GNU/Linux distributions are already shipping binaries so
> Dan would be in good company there. ?Not to mention that anyone can support OpenJDK as
> it's Free Software, whereas support for Oracle's binaries is restricted to Oracle only.
>
>> ? ?/GES
>>
>>
>
> --
> Andrew :)
>
> Free Java Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
>
> Support Free Java!
> Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
> http://icedtea.classpath.org
> PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
> Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F ?8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
>


From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Thu Oct 27 06:48:29 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:48:29 +0200
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <1319012913.8669.68.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
References: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<1318960890.8669.60.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<CALyUpY00ckkGMPyt92PQPJg7BnLDmJ1_11NrC94i-LGxEQxNqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1319012913.8669.68.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY29TXC2FOqwsXEtjVhOr8r0W8v5Ld9O-eyBsw9M7EGyGA@mail.gmail.com>

>> In the interim, do you think I could include it in my own builds (os/x port) ?
>
> Yes, but that is what I am trying to prevent from happening :)
> Note that IcedTea doesn't really "ship" Rhino itself. But it has
> configure and build infrastructure to detect the system installed copy
> of Rhino and transforms that so that it is available as separate module
> under jre/lib.

If my build process download Rhino first and then setup/update the
build to use it, could I use it.

If so, should we rename Rhino classname and patch OpenJDK sources to
use these new classes ?
Or use rename them like JDJ7u1 do, ie org/mozilla/classfile ->
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal ?

I notice Oracle JDK7 preview still didn't include them.

JDK7u1 include them :

sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/ByteCode.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/ClassFileField.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/ClassFileMethod.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/ClassFileWriter$ClassFileFormatException.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/ClassFileWriter$StackMapTable.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/ClassFileWriter.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/ConstantPool.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/ExceptionTableEntry.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/FieldOrMethodRef.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/SuperBlock.class
sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal/TypeInfo.class
sun/org/mozilla/javascript/internal/Arguments.class
sun/org/mozilla/javascript/internal/BaseFunction.class
sun/org/mozilla/javascript/internal/BeanProperty.class
sun/org/mozilla/javascript/internal/BoundFunction.class
sun/org/mozilla/javascript/internal/Callable.class
sun/org/mozilla/javascript/internal/ClassCache.class
sun/org/mozilla/javascript/internal/ClassShutter.class

....

> IMHO if a JDK includes javax.script javascript support we should make
> sure they include the same version and features. So we should try to
> collect all versions/derivitives of Rhino being used with
> OpenJDK/IcedTea/ClosedJDK and setup a canonical version (ideally just as
> a branch of upstream Rhino). That would prevent subtle compatibility
> issues.
>
> I haven't been able to find the source code for the Rhino variant
> shipped with the Oracle ClosedJDK. Since it is distributed under the
> GPL/MPL, I assume the source code is somewhere for users to use, but I
> might have missed where. Someone from Oracle (Mark R.?) might know where
> the sources can be fetched from.

What's the status about this ?


From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Thu Oct 27 06:52:38 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:52:38 +0200
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CAPCjjnHFM5wTp_=ODNu5imn4qfmFP-R=5aRT6ewR7yQmmNN_9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
	<20111026201337.GJ594@rivendell.redhat.com>
	<CAPCjjnHFM5wTp_=ODNu5imn4qfmFP-R=5aRT6ewR7yQmmNN_9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY24wM0P463oM0QdMcDcFVBJxwiF3k-YqVyXDEozNNpB7Q@mail.gmail.com>

> If someone can point me to a prebuild of openjdk 1.7 for CentOS/Redhad
> 5.5+, it is very much appreciated. So far I only found discussion for
> Ferora, ubuntu, etc

You couldn't use Fedora RPM on CentOS/RHEL 5.5 ?


From dantran at gmail.com  Thu Oct 27 07:04:47 2011
From: dantran at gmail.com (Dan Tran)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:04:47 -0700
Subject: Need Advice to see if we can ship OpenJDK/JRE with Commercial App
In-Reply-To: <CALyUpY24wM0P463oM0QdMcDcFVBJxwiF3k-YqVyXDEozNNpB7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALyUpY11t_jfe6dekg1TgME8JCvR_Q_MPRKWEv6okYoW8HkiMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnFjPOev-WKZN6Oy0s7uAcqzP0wJV3KXbUO6_ZOPrc1AKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RgyinkYUZSer3FY0=yF6-z0x7BdC8bjDjX2vA6sfhCc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPCjjnHpLDGRLWBN901vDu0DaJN5zaAAUCtJiapon-W4C8LkCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8Rjqmaxu1ts=qxob17MwEbWMK7jsJTi23ecpuc6_N5H3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<28EB1E75-4DE7-45FF-84E5-9273F8CACAEF@pobox.com>
	<CABKW8Ri7qVLphOhi+meHy_3_ib8U7tcRuy0OY3yb7JC+7Eg0ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<95F745F4-6BBC-4F87-89F9-DFC8CC9EAA3A@pobox.com>
	<CAPCjjnE9tjO19=4xXr1cYS5E3kvtbdDWf6jn_b43hFeUX+Pirg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A87B7B4-31B6-4F58-B393-EA6AFC308F06@oracle.com>
	<20111026201337.GJ594@rivendell.redhat.com>
	<CAPCjjnHFM5wTp_=ODNu5imn4qfmFP-R=5aRT6ewR7yQmmNN_9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY24wM0P463oM0QdMcDcFVBJxwiF3k-YqVyXDEozNNpB7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPCjjnFtdcOvS4+TBXaZ4EiY+Aa=mE2qC=qW9Tr0No3f9-mfyw@mail.gmail.com>

Since openjdk1.7 for Fedora is built against latest toolchain/lib, I
would assume it is unsafe to use against CentOS. I can give it try.

If any one already experience with similar setup please share.

-D


On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If someone can point me to a prebuild of openjdk 1.7 for CentOS/Redhad
>> 5.5+, it is very much appreciated. So far I only found discussion for
>> Ferora, ubuntu, etc
>
> You couldn't use Fedora RPM on CentOS/RHEL 5.5 ?
>


From mark at klomp.org  Thu Oct 27 08:46:42 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:46:42 +0200
Subject: Rhino build support
In-Reply-To: <CALyUpY29TXC2FOqwsXEtjVhOr8r0W8v5Ld9O-eyBsw9M7EGyGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<1318960890.8669.60.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<CALyUpY00ckkGMPyt92PQPJg7BnLDmJ1_11NrC94i-LGxEQxNqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1319012913.8669.68.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<CALyUpY29TXC2FOqwsXEtjVhOr8r0W8v5Ld9O-eyBsw9M7EGyGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1319705202.5037.88.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

Hi Henri (and Mark Reinhold, see ping below),

On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 08:48 +0200, Henri Gomez wrote:
> >> In the interim, do you think I could include it in my own builds (os/x port) ?
> >
> > Yes, but that is what I am trying to prevent from happening :)
> > Note that IcedTea doesn't really "ship" Rhino itself. But it has
> > configure and build infrastructure to detect the system installed copy
> > of Rhino and transforms that so that it is available as separate module
> > under jre/lib.
> 
> If my build process download Rhino first and then setup/update the
> build to use it, could I use it.

Sure, you could also do that.

> If so, should we rename Rhino classname and patch OpenJDK sources to
> use these new classes ?
> Or use rename them like JDJ7u1 do, ie org/mozilla/classfile ->
> sun/org/mozilla/classfile/internal ?

That is what IcedTea does.
See the rewrite-rhino support in IcedTea Makefile.am.
It is a little ugly, but the best we can do at the moment making sure
the classes are in their own "namespace". An alternative approach might
be to have a special ClassLoader that automagically loads the classes as
if they are in a separate package namespace.

The reason for this is that we like applications to be able to bundle
their own Rhino variant (LibreOffice for example does), which might be
using the original package name. The drawback of course is that we have
two "copies" of the same jar, ideally everything, both jre and
applications would always just use the one and only system rhino
install.

> > IMHO if a JDK includes javax.script javascript support we should make
> > sure they include the same version and features. So we should try to
> > collect all versions/derivitives of Rhino being used with
> > OpenJDK/IcedTea/ClosedJDK and setup a canonical version (ideally just as
> > a branch of upstream Rhino). That would prevent subtle compatibility
> > issues.
> >
> > I haven't been able to find the source code for the Rhino variant
> > shipped with the Oracle ClosedJDK. Since it is distributed under the
> > GPL/MPL, I assume the source code is somewhere for users to use, but I
> > might have missed where. Someone from Oracle (Mark R.?) might know where
> > the sources can be fetched from.
> 
> What's the status about this ?

I forgot to poke Mark Reinhold again.
Lets do that now :)

Mark, could you point us to the sources of the Rhino variant as shipped
with the Oracle ClosedJDK?

Thanks,

Mark


From richard.bair at oracle.com  Thu Oct 27 23:17:50 2011
From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:17:50 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
Message-ID: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>

Hi OpenJDK community!

As announced at JavaOne we (Oracle) would love to contribute JavaFX into OpenJDK as a new project called "JFX". For some who have been following along, we've talked about this for a long time but finally (finally!) we're ready to act on it and open source the platform. We are not just interested in open sourcing the code, however, we also want to move into an open development model. We already have an open bug database[1]. The project uses Mercurial, so we should fit in pretty well into OpenJDK.

Our basic motivation for wanting to open source JFX is to built a community and ecosystem support and adoption around JavaFX by increasing transparency. Of course we are also interested in getting patches and early feedback from the community[2]! Our goal is to provide the next-generation Java client toolkit, and JFX would be the next step along that path, which hopefully culminates in a JSR for the Java 9 timeframe and including JFX as proper part of the JDK. I would be the initial Project lead for JFX.

A little bit about our project:
It is a significant contribution to the corpus of open source code
It includes over 6000+ public API members (methods / constructors / etc)
It includes over 11,500 unit tests
Core libraries such as observable collections and binding
Scene graph, effects, graphics
CSS support for JavaFX
Media
WebView
Prism (hardware accelerated graphics, including openGL and D3D and java2D implementations)
Glass (windowing system, base porting layer, including mac, linux, and windows implementations)
UI Controls and Charts

Our builds are all Ant, with JUnit for testing (there is some 'make' in there for native parts). We also have NetBeans projects setup for each area. There is a lot of code that we'll be releasing, so as a matter of practicality we're going to release different parts of JavaFX over the course of the next few months, starting with UI controls followed by charts. We'll put up a full roadmap onto our project pages, should we be approved to become part of OpenJDK. We'll make sure that the open source code is always fully buildable by anybody using the sources + a binary plug (which will become unnecessary as we open source the remaining pieces). All of the above listed modules will be open sourced and fully buildable.

What do you think? I'd love to hear any issues and hopefully be able to resolve those prior to requesting an official vote.

Thanks
Richard

[1] http://javafx-jira.kenai.com
[2] A good example of the sort of interesting stuff going on out there can be found here: http://jroller.com/neugens/entry/embed_swing_inside_javafx_2

From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 00:46:43 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:46:43 -0300
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H5B-4gZKN0f=NH_-+CBPHoxhXk5hgeabfp4r8Z5RHkJ1w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 20:17, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com> wrote:

>
> [1] http://javafx-jira.kenai.com


Excellent news... however, why host this on Kenai instead of Java.net?.

FC

-- 
"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."
Richard Hamming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code


From richard.bair at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 02:26:56 2011
From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:26:56 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CACGw4H5B-4gZKN0f=NH_-+CBPHoxhXk5hgeabfp4r8Z5RHkJ1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H5B-4gZKN0f=NH_-+CBPHoxhXk5hgeabfp4r8Z5RHkJ1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2416519B-97F7-4971-BD8C-163B3AEA672E@oracle.com>

Hi Fernando,

> 
> [1] http://javafx-jira.kenai.com
> 
> Excellent news... however, why host this on Kenai instead of Java.net?.

Good question. We have been using this JIRA on kenai for years (as the JavaFX compiler was hosted on kenai going back some years). So most likely what we will do is migrate at some point to the new infrastructure that the openJDK will use (as you may know there is work ongoing to update the bug and code review systems for OpenJDK). So rather than convert over now and then again later, we'll just likely wait for the new infrastructure. Also, I _think_ our version of JIRA is newer than the java.net one.

Cheers
Richard

From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 03:01:51 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:01:51 -0300
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <2416519B-97F7-4971-BD8C-163B3AEA672E@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H5B-4gZKN0f=NH_-+CBPHoxhXk5hgeabfp4r8Z5RHkJ1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<2416519B-97F7-4971-BD8C-163B3AEA672E@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H7ALgM12qL9FUGFzMZzuXa1-w2w57c7zm2X-Q-JkpWWdA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 23:26, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com> wrote:

> So rather than convert over now and then again later, we'll just likely
> wait for the new infrastructure. Also, I _think_ our version of JIRA is
> newer than the java.net one.
>

Hi Richard,

My comment was based purely on brand name recognition. I never understood
the need for "Kenai" anyway, Java.net was just fine.

But given that there are two similar projects, Kenai.com and Java.net, my
common sense guess is that Java-related projects would go to Java-net and
non-Java open source projects would go to Kenai, right?.

I remember reading earlier this year (February-March I think that all the
old Java.net infrastructure was moving to the kenai back-end under the
hood, so, I wonder if you have checked lately for the version of Jira on
Java.net. Chances are that by now both are synced, ie running under the
same back-end.

But of course, I could be wrong. :)

Regards,
FC


From brian.beck at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 03:13:28 2011
From: brian.beck at oracle.com (Brian Beck)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:13:28 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CACGw4H7ALgM12qL9FUGFzMZzuXa1-w2w57c7zm2X-Q-JkpWWdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>	<CACGw4H5B-4gZKN0f=NH_-+CBPHoxhXk5hgeabfp4r8Z5RHkJ1w@mail.gmail.com>	<2416519B-97F7-4971-BD8C-163B3AEA672E@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H7ALgM12qL9FUGFzMZzuXa1-w2w57c7zm2X-Q-JkpWWdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EAA1DD8.1020809@oracle.com>

Hi Fernando:

Just to be clear the project will be using the OpenJDK infrastructure.  
The Mercurial repos, mailing lists and project pages will all be under 
openjdk.java.net.  It's just that the bug database will stay where it is 
on Kenai until a) all the source has been opened and b) OpenJDK has a 
public bug database that we can use.  As you say, it's common sense to 
put our project at openjdk.java.net.

Brian.


On 10/27/11 8:01 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 23:26, Richard Bair<richard.bair at oracle.com>  wrote:
>
>> So rather than convert over now and then again later, we'll just likely
>> wait for the new infrastructure. Also, I _think_ our version of JIRA is
>> newer than the java.net one.
>>
> Hi Richard,
>
> My comment was based purely on brand name recognition. I never understood
> the need for "Kenai" anyway, Java.net was just fine.
>
> But given that there are two similar projects, Kenai.com and Java.net, my
> common sense guess is that Java-related projects would go to Java-net and
> non-Java open source projects would go to Kenai, right?.
>
> I remember reading earlier this year (February-March I think that all the
> old Java.net infrastructure was moving to the kenai back-end under the
> hood, so, I wonder if you have checked lately for the version of Jira on
> Java.net. Chances are that by now both are synced, ie running under the
> same back-end.
>
> But of course, I could be wrong. :)
>
> Regards,
> FC



From richard.bair at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 03:43:34 2011
From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:43:34 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <4EAA1DD8.1020809@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H5B-4gZKN0f=NH_-+CBPHoxhXk5hgeabfp4r8Z5RHkJ1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<2416519B-97F7-4971-BD8C-163B3AEA672E@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H7ALgM12qL9FUGFzMZzuXa1-w2w57c7zm2X-Q-JkpWWdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EAA1DD8.1020809@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <51E12F36-A1C0-49DA-988C-79A21035F334@oracle.com>

Ya, sorry for the confusion, when I think of infrastructure I'm thinking of bug database and code review systems, but for workspaces, project pages, and mailing lists we would use all the OpenJDK infrastructure from day one.

On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Brian Beck <brian.beck at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi Fernando:
> 
> Just to be clear the project will be using the OpenJDK infrastructure.  The Mercurial repos, mailing lists and project pages will all be under openjdk.java.net.  It's just that the bug database will stay where it is on Kenai until a) all the source has been opened and b) OpenJDK has a public bug database that we can use.  As you say, it's common sense to put our project at openjdk.java.net.
> 
> Brian.
> 
> 
> On 10/27/11 8:01 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 23:26, Richard Bair<richard.bair at oracle.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> So rather than convert over now and then again later, we'll just likely
>>> wait for the new infrastructure. Also, I _think_ our version of JIRA is
>>> newer than the java.net one.
>>> 
>> Hi Richard,
>> 
>> My comment was based purely on brand name recognition. I never understood
>> the need for "Kenai" anyway, Java.net was just fine.
>> 
>> But given that there are two similar projects, Kenai.com and Java.net, my
>> common sense guess is that Java-related projects would go to Java-net and
>> non-Java open source projects would go to Kenai, right?.
>> 
>> I remember reading earlier this year (February-March I think that all the
>> old Java.net infrastructure was moving to the kenai back-end under the
>> hood, so, I wonder if you have checked lately for the version of Jira on
>> Java.net. Chances are that by now both are synced, ie running under the
>> same back-end.
>> 
>> But of course, I could be wrong. :)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> FC
> 


From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 03:44:46 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:44:46 -0300
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <4EAA1DD8.1020809@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H5B-4gZKN0f=NH_-+CBPHoxhXk5hgeabfp4r8Z5RHkJ1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<2416519B-97F7-4971-BD8C-163B3AEA672E@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H7ALgM12qL9FUGFzMZzuXa1-w2w57c7zm2X-Q-JkpWWdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EAA1DD8.1020809@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H4CqLGrYMYyDmW=G-3-Job-0GaAUf=upuTmA-PyvKqM5A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 00:13, Brian Beck <brian.beck at oracle.com> wrote:

> As you say, it's common sense to put our project at openjdk.java.net.
>
> Brian.
>

Good to hear, Brian!

FC
-- 
"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."
Richard Hamming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code


From pdoubleya at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 05:26:07 2011
From: pdoubleya at gmail.com (Patrick Wright)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:26:07 +0200
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Richard

This is good news, thanks to Oracle, and to you and the JavaFX team
for doing this.

How do you envision the transition vis-a-vis releases? Currently there
are binary bits to download from javafx.com. Will those be built, from
day 1, from the combination of open-source bits + binary bits? Or do
you plan to keep a closed, "private" repository/branch for releasable
items for the time being?

As far as planning and taking input from the community, JavaFX has
several years of development behind it, basically all driven from
within Sun/Oracle - how do you see _planning_ incorporating the
community? I ask this because until now, I've seen JavaFX as a sort of
product being developed by Oracle, rather than a part of the standard
library. As a product, it would be in the product owner's interest to
have full say over what is included and what is not, based on what
they believe will do well on the market. A more concrete question
would be: will all project plans, planned milestones, planned features
be made public in advance, and be open to discussion and feedback from
the community, and will the decision-making process around project
planning and features be made in the open?

Thanks,
Patrick


From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 05:40:23 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:40:23 -0300
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:26, Patrick Wright <pdoubleya at gmail.com> wrote:

> As a product, it would be in the product owner's interest to
> have full say over what is included and what is not, based on what
> they believe will do well on the market. A more concrete question
> would be: will all project plans, planned milestones, planned features
> be made public in advance, and be open to discussion and feedback from
> the community, and will the decision-making process around project
> planning and features be made in the open?
>

I guess the "it?s not open enough" doomsday preaching and complaining can
begin now...
*sarcasm*

FC
-- 
"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."
Richard Hamming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code


From frans at meruvian.org  Fri Oct 28 05:43:11 2011
From: frans at meruvian.org (Frans Thamura)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:43:11 +0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>

>
> I guess the "it?s not open enough" doomsday preaching and complaining can
> begin now...
> *sarcasm*
>
hehe

it is not standard also :(

I think OpenJDK move to standard based on JCP,

with JFX will break the JDK mindset, and this mean , close
implementation to any JVM spec, like Android did..

F


From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 06:06:01 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:06:01 -0300
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H4P43PPs4tMzBbJcbvc5bRbdd-hfw-e5MGeNDoDoF9e0A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 02:43, Frans Thamura <frans at meruvian.org> wrote:

> ith JFX will break the JDK mindset, and this mean , close
> implementation to any JVM spec, like Android did..
>

Oh please, stop the FUD, before anything is done there?s the doomsday
preachers already at work, it?s sickening.

Or do a clean-room implementation of JFX yourself...

FC

-- 
"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."
Richard Hamming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code


From richard.bair at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 06:18:19 2011
From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:18:19 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>

Hi Patrick,

> How do you envision the transition vis-a-vis releases? Currently there
> are binary bits to download from javafx.com. Will those be built, from
> day 1, from the combination of open-source bits + binary bits? Or do
> you plan to keep a closed, "private" repository/branch for releasable
> items for the time being?

I see it as being the same as with OpenJDK, in that:
  - The entire project will be buildable and runnable and usable on free software
  - We are likely to have some encumbrances that require a closed module for the time being for the binaries that we ship of JavaFX, for the sake of performance and such (e.g. T2K for fonts)
  - We will continue to work hard to replace those bits with free code

For example, OpenJDK uses Open Pisces, while the JRE / JDK builds from Oracle use Ductus. However he have definite goals to improve Open Pisces so we can replace Ductus. It costs us time and money to maintain two different implementations. It is in our interest to make the free code good enough to replace the non-free code. The same is true here. I hate having to maintain a public forest and private forest -- it complicates my life and slows down my team. I would much rather only have the public forest and do everything in one place -- the open. It just makes sense.

> As far as planning and taking input from the community, JavaFX has
> several years of development behind it, basically all driven from
> within Sun/Oracle - how do you see _planning_ incorporating the
> community? I ask this because until now, I've seen JavaFX as a sort of
> product being developed by Oracle, rather than a part of the standard
> library. As a product, it would be in the product owner's interest to
> have full say over what is included and what is not, based on what
> they believe will do well on the market. A more concrete question
> would be: will all project plans, planned milestones, planned features
> be made public in advance, and be open to discussion and feedback from
> the community, and will the decision-making process around project
> planning and features be made in the open?

We plan on following the pattern of OpenJDK. We plan on using JEP's for describing features we'd like to see. Of course anybody in the community (I'd have to consult the bylaws but I would guess any Contributor?) can file JEP's as well. We keep pretty much everything else in JIRA -- every bug or feature that goes into a specific release is listed there as targeted at that release. Of course these decisions (what features go into which release) are fluid and JIRA should never be taken as the authoritative roadmap -- that would be on the project pages. Much of the back and forth of the design work is also in JIRA (not as much historically but more so now). Also worth mentioning is that our release schedule is tied to the Java SE release schedule, which makes sense.

Obviously the decision of what will be worked on and what won't will largely be based on who is doing the work. Obviously the decision about whether to spend Oracle engineering on a particular problem is a decision that ultimately lies with Oracle, just as what features you would choose to work on is ultimately your choice. But if members of the community (for example you, or IBM, or whomever) decides they want a feature and will provide the engineering time (including testing and documentation) and the feature is not otherwise in conflict with the project, then without question I would be happy for such help and would adjust our plans accordingly.

We expect to do things in an "open and meritocratic manner" as the bylaws state. But ultimately, as the bylaws state, the Project lead has final say on all technical matters. I would do my best to make sure the right technical choices are always made (I think JavaFX to date has a very strong track record of this).

Thanks
Richard

From richard.bair at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 06:20:43 2011
From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:20:43 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A5796E15-AC39-4470-89DF-E6540CE40A8B@oracle.com>

I'm sorry Frans, I'm afraid I didn't understand that.

Thanks
Richard

On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Frans Thamura <frans at meruvian.org> wrote:

>> 
>> I guess the "it?s not open enough" doomsday preaching and complaining can
>> begin now...
>> *sarcasm*
>> 
> hehe
> 
> it is not standard also :(
> 
> I think OpenJDK move to standard based on JCP,
> 
> with JFX will break the JDK mindset, and this mean , close
> implementation to any JVM spec, like Android did..
> 
> F


From frans at meruvian.org  Fri Oct 28 06:23:50 2011
From: frans at meruvian.org (Frans Thamura)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:23:50 +0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <A5796E15-AC39-4470-89DF-E6540CE40A8B@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<A5796E15-AC39-4470-89DF-E6540CE40A8B@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAOeeQyrj-ZB2=zaf3B+r1s0GXiSUgMyhvj6PkjianWKqdmGzKA@mail.gmail.com>

my mind said.. that openjdk is based on standard, it become RI
implementation of Java SE,

CMIIW

and JFX is not standard product,

what happen if JFX relaease with OJDK? will it break the RI approach

that is the area i am concering

F



On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry Frans, I'm afraid I didn't understand that.
>
> Thanks
> Richard
>
> On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Frans Thamura <frans at meruvian.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I guess the "it?s not open enough" doomsday preaching and complaining can
>>> begin now...
>>> *sarcasm*
>>>
>> hehe
>>
>> it is not standard also :(
>>
>> I think OpenJDK move to standard based on JCP,
>>
>> with JFX will break the JDK mindset, and this mean , close
>> implementation to any JVM spec, like Android did..
>>
>> F
>


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 06:32:29 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:32:29 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFByb2plY3QgUHJvcG9zYWw6IEpGWA==?=
Message-ID: <4eaa4c84.4b06e30a.3505.ffff88c6@mx.google.com>

Wow, that's a great great news!

I'm one if those long time followers, so I know since how much time this had been into discussion.

One suggestion: please, please! release the linux version quickly!

I also think it should be a separate project not included and merged (but perhaps bundled) with the core jdk.

Cheers,
Mario

----- Reply message -----
Da: "Richard Bair" <richard.bair at oracle.com>
Data: ven, ott 28, 2011 01:17
Oggetto: Project Proposal: JFX
A: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>

Hi OpenJDK community!

As announced at JavaOne we (Oracle) would love to contribute JavaFX into OpenJDK as a new project called "JFX". For some who have been following along, we've talked about this for a long time but finally (finally!) we're ready to act on it and open source the platform. We are not just interested in open sourcing the code, however, we also want to move into an open development model. We already have an open bug database[1]. The project uses Mercurial, so we should fit in pretty well into OpenJDK.

Our basic motivation for wanting to open source JFX is to built a community and ecosystem support and adoption around JavaFX by increasing transparency. Of course we are also interested in getting patches and early feedback from the community[2]! Our goal is to provide the next-generation Java client toolkit, and JFX would be the next step along that path, which hopefully culminates in a JSR for the Java 9 timeframe and including JFX as proper part of the JDK. I would be the initial Project lead for JFX.

A little bit about our project:
It is a significant contribution to the corpus of open source code
It includes over 6000+ public API members (methods / constructors / etc)
It includes over 11,500 unit tests
Core libraries such as observable collections and binding
Scene graph, effects, graphics
CSS support for JavaFX
Media
WebView
Prism (hardware accelerated graphics, including openGL and D3D and java2D implementations)
Glass (windowing system, base porting layer, including mac, linux, and windows implementations)
UI Controls and Charts

Our builds are all Ant, with JUnit for testing (there is some 'make' in there for native parts). We also have NetBeans projects setup for each area. There is a lot of code that we'll be releasing, so as a matter of practicality we're going to release different parts of JavaFX over the course of the next few months, starting with UI controls followed by charts. We'll put up a full roadmap onto our project pages, should we be approved to become part of OpenJDK. We'll make sure that the open source code is always fully buildable by anybody using the sources + a binary plug (which will become unnecessary as we open source the remaining pieces). All of the above listed modules will be open sourced and fully buildable.

What do you think? I'd love to hear any issues and hopefully be able to resolve those prior to requesting an official vote.

Thanks
Richard

[1] http://javafx-jira.kenai.com
[2] A good example of the sort of interesting stuff going on out there can be found here: http://jroller.com/neugens/entry/embed_swing_inside_javafx_2

From richard.bair at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 06:37:20 2011
From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:37:20 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CAOeeQyrj-ZB2=zaf3B+r1s0GXiSUgMyhvj6PkjianWKqdmGzKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<A5796E15-AC39-4470-89DF-E6540CE40A8B@oracle.com>
	<CAOeeQyrj-ZB2=zaf3B+r1s0GXiSUgMyhvj6PkjianWKqdmGzKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <37075360-8ADD-4701-BE26-324928DBCD51@oracle.com>

Ok thanks for clarifying. So OpenJDK is made up of multiple projects. One of those is JDK 7 for example, or JDK 8. These projects form the RI. In addition you have projects like VisualVM which are not themselves part of the standard, yet are part of OpenJDK. Then there are other projects like Coin and Lambda which are part of OpenJDK, and also have associated JSR's from which some, or all, of their code will be "promoted" into the core JDK through the JCP process. We hope JavaFX will be like one of these. As I mentioned in my initial post, we hope to have a JSR for JavaFX in the Java 9 timeframe. In other words, we want to incubate JavaFX in OpenJDK precisely because we would like to see it become part of the standard. Of course we cannot unilaterally make those sorts of decisions, it depends on the JCP and the community as to whether they want JavaFX to be standardized, but that is certainly our hope.

In the meantime, this does not dilute the role of OpenJDK as the RI for the Java platform.

Thanks
Richard

On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:23 PM, Frans Thamura <frans at meruvian.org> wrote:

> my mind said.. that openjdk is based on standard, it become RI
> implementation of Java SE,
> 
> CMIIW
> 
> and JFX is not standard product,
> 
> what happen if JFX relaease with OJDK? will it break the RI approach
> 
> that is the area i am concering
> 
> F
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com> wrote:
>> I'm sorry Frans, I'm afraid I didn't understand that.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Richard
>> 
>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Frans Thamura <frans at meruvian.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I guess the "it?s not open enough" doomsday preaching and complaining can
>>>> begin now...
>>>> *sarcasm*
>>>> 
>>> hehe
>>> 
>>> it is not standard also :(
>>> 
>>> I think OpenJDK move to standard based on JCP,
>>> 
>>> with JFX will break the JDK mindset, and this mean , close
>>> implementation to any JVM spec, like Android did..
>>> 
>>> F
>> 


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 06:38:23 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:38:23 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFByb2plY3QgUHJvcG9zYWw6IEpGWA==?=
Message-ID: <4eaa4de6.d2d0e30a.1079.ffff8f9b@mx.google.com>

Just a small addition, it would be really nice if no login and endless clickthrough would be required to download the binary :)

This and the lack of a Linux version are the single most important problems, especially considering that your intention is to open source it.

Mario

----- Reply message -----
Da: "neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com" <neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com>
Data: ven, ott 28, 2011 08:32
Oggetto: Re: Project Proposal: JFX
A: "Richard Bair" <richard.bair at oracle.com>, <discuss at openjdk.java.net>

Wow, that's a great great news!

I'm one if those long time followers, so I know since how much time this had been into discussion.

One suggestion: please, please! release the linux version quickly!

I also think it should be a separate project not included and merged (but perhaps bundled) with the core jdk.

Cheers,
Mario

----- Reply message -----
Da: "Richard Bair" <richard.bair at oracle.com>
Data: ven, ott 28, 2011 01:17
Oggetto: Project Proposal: JFX
A: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>

Hi OpenJDK community!

As announced at JavaOne we (Oracle) would love to contribute JavaFX into OpenJDK as a new project called "JFX". For some who have been following along, we've talked about this for a long time but finally (finally!) we're ready to act on it and open source the platform. We are not just interested in open sourcing the code, however, we also want to move into an open development model. We already have an open bug database[1]. The project uses Mercurial, so we should fit in pretty well into OpenJDK.

Our basic motivation for wanting to open source JFX is to built a community and ecosystem support and adoption around JavaFX by increasing transparency. Of course we are also interested in getting patches and early feedback from the community[2]! Our goal is to provide the next-generation Java client toolkit, and JFX would be the next step along that path, which hopefully culminates in a JSR for the Java 9 timeframe and including JFX as proper part of the JDK. I would be the initial Project lead for JFX.

A little bit about our project:
It is a significant contribution to the corpus of open source code
It includes over 6000+ public API members (methods / constructors / etc)
It includes over 11,500 unit tests
Core libraries such as observable collections and binding
Scene graph, effects, graphics
CSS support for JavaFX
Media
WebView
Prism (hardware accelerated graphics, including openGL and D3D and java2D implementations)
Glass (windowing system, base porting layer, including mac, linux, and windows implementations)
UI Controls and Charts

Our builds are all Ant, with JUnit for testing (there is some 'make' in there for native parts). We also have NetBeans projects setup for each area. There is a lot of code that we'll be releasing, so as a matter of practicality we're going to release different parts of JavaFX over the course of the next few months, starting with UI controls followed by charts. We'll put up a full roadmap onto our project pages, should we be approved to become part of OpenJDK. We'll make sure that the open source code is always fully buildable by anybody using the sources + a binary plug (which will become unnecessary as we open source the remaining pieces). All of the above listed modules will be open sourced and fully buildable.

What do you think? I'd love to hear any issues and hopefully be able to resolve those prior to requesting an official vote.

Thanks
Richard

[1] http://javafx-jira.kenai.com
[2] A good example of the sort of interesting stuff going on out there can be found here: http://jroller.com/neugens/entry/embed_swing_inside_javafx_2

From frans at meruvian.org  Fri Oct 28 06:40:06 2011
From: frans at meruvian.org (Frans Thamura)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:40:06 +0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <37075360-8ADD-4701-BE26-324928DBCD51@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<A5796E15-AC39-4470-89DF-E6540CE40A8B@oracle.com>
	<CAOeeQyrj-ZB2=zaf3B+r1s0GXiSUgMyhvj6PkjianWKqdmGzKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<37075360-8ADD-4701-BE26-324928DBCD51@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAOeeQyriHOVfznoiD6YXHYEh0g4fHV1bZZat_ZWD-mwvH9Atgg@mail.gmail.com>

yup, that is my concern :) nothing more..

i think jfx good in jdk, because less people use it, like a product
promoted since javaone 2007, and now all move to HTML5..

we will see J9 with JFX, that will be new thing

java.net have subproject feature, that we can add openjfx as subproject.

F


On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com> wrote:
> Ok thanks for clarifying. So OpenJDK is made up of multiple projects. One of
> those is JDK 7 for example, or JDK 8. These projects form the RI. In
> addition you have projects like VisualVM which are not themselves part of
> the standard, yet are part of OpenJDK. Then there are other projects like
> Coin and Lambda which are part of OpenJDK, and also have associated JSR's
> from which some, or all, of their code will be "promoted" into the core JDK
> through the JCP process. We hope JavaFX will be like one of these. As I
> mentioned in my initial post, we hope to have a JSR for JavaFX in the Java 9
> timeframe. In other words, we want to incubate JavaFX in OpenJDK precisely
> because we would like to see it become part of the standard. Of course we
> cannot unilaterally make those sorts of decisions, it depends on the JCP and
> the community as to whether they want JavaFX to be standardized, but that is
> certainly our hope.
> In the meantime, this does not dilute the role of OpenJDK as the RI for the
> Java platform.
> Thanks
> Richard
>
> On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:23 PM, Frans Thamura <frans at meruvian.org> wrote:
>
> my mind said.. that openjdk is based on standard, it become RI
> implementation of Java SE,
>
> CMIIW
>
> and JFX is not standard product,
>
> what happen if JFX relaease with OJDK? will it break the RI approach
>
> that is the area i am concering
>
> F
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry Frans, I'm afraid I didn't understand that.
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard
>
> On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Frans Thamura <frans at meruvian.org> wrote:
>
>
> I guess the "it?s not open enough" doomsday preaching and complaining can
>
> begin now...
>
> *sarcasm*
>
> hehe
>
> it is not standard also :(
>
> I think OpenJDK move to standard based on JCP,
>
> with JFX will break the JDK mindset, and this mean , close
>
> implementation to any JVM spec, like Android did..
>
> F
>
>


From richard.bair at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 06:41:04 2011
From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:41:04 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <4eaa4c84.4b06e30a.3505.ffff88c6@mx.google.com>
References: <4eaa4c84.4b06e30a.3505.ffff88c6@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <CE8DF946-9F30-45DD-A859-663166D2E8C8@oracle.com>

Thanks Mario, we have guys working on Linux full time. The current plan is to GA Linux second half of next year, beta in the first half. We are eager to get full support on Mac, windows, and Linux as soon as possible. I am hoping that we can get Glass out in the open without too much delay so folks like yourself could help out :-) and maybe help bring in the GA date!

Richard

On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:32 PM, neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com<neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow, that's a great great news!
> 
> I'm one if those long time followers, so I know since how much time this had been into discussion.
> 
> One suggestion: please, please! release the linux version quickly!
> 
> I also think it should be a separate project not included and merged (but perhaps bundled) with the core jdk.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mario
> 
> ----- Reply message -----
> Da: "Richard Bair" <richard.bair at oracle.com>
> Data: ven, ott 28, 2011 01:17
> Oggetto: Project Proposal: JFX
> A: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>
> 
> Hi OpenJDK community!
> 
> As announced at JavaOne we (Oracle) would love to contribute JavaFX into OpenJDK as a new project called "JFX". For some who have been following along, we've talked about this for a long time but finally (finally!) we're ready to act on it and open source the platform. We are not just interested in open sourcing the code, however, we also want to move into an open development model. We already have an open bug database[1]. The project uses Mercurial, so we should fit in pretty well into OpenJDK.
> 
> Our basic motivation for wanting to open source JFX is to built a community and ecosystem support and adoption around JavaFX by increasing transparency. Of course we are also interested in getting patches and early feedback from the community[2]! Our goal is to provide the next-generation Java client toolkit, and JFX would be the next step along that path, which hopefully culminates in a JSR for the Java 9 timeframe and including JFX as proper part of the JDK. I would be the initial Project lead for JFX.
> 
> A little bit about our project:
> It is a significant contribution to the corpus of open source code
> It includes over 6000+ public API members (methods / constructors / etc)
> It includes over 11,500 unit tests
> Core libraries such as observable collections and binding
> Scene graph, effects, graphics
> CSS support for JavaFX
> Media
> WebView
> Prism (hardware accelerated graphics, including openGL and D3D and java2D implementations)
> Glass (windowing system, base porting layer, including mac, linux, and windows implementations)
> UI Controls and Charts
> 
> Our builds are all Ant, with JUnit for testing (there is some 'make' in there for native parts). We also have NetBeans projects setup for each area. There is a lot of code that we'll be releasing, so as a matter of practicality we're going to release different parts of JavaFX over the course of the next few months, starting with UI controls followed by charts. We'll put up a full roadmap onto our project pages, should we be approved to become part of OpenJDK. We'll make sure that the open source code is always fully buildable by anybody using the sources + a binary plug (which will become unnecessary as we open source the remaining pieces). All of the above listed modules will be open sourced and fully buildable.
> 
> What do you think? I'd love to hear any issues and hopefully be able to resolve those prior to requesting an official vote.
> 
> Thanks
> Richard
> 
> [1] http://javafx-jira.kenai.com
> [2] A good example of the sort of interesting stuff going on out there can be found here: http://jroller.com/neugens/entry/embed_swing_inside_javafx_2
> 


From pdoubleya at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 07:15:49 2011
From: pdoubleya at gmail.com (Patrick Wright)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:15:49 +0200
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAFn-HvuPqPXKYnH_eySqtfu+vWQQFUrLxJ9yJo84wjCdrva1nw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Richard

Thanks for the open, complete and straightforward answer. I think it's
a great and friendly move for Oracle to open-source the (mountain of!)
work the JavaFX team has been working on. I'm looking forward to
seeing what comes out of it.


Cheers,
Patrick

> I see it as being the same as with OpenJDK, in that:
> ? - The entire project will be buildable and runnable and usable on free
> software


From mlists at juma.me.uk  Fri Oct 28 08:14:04 2011
From: mlists at juma.me.uk (Ismael Juma)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:14:04 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <loom.20111028T101258-925@post.gmane.org>

Hi Richard,

First of all, I would like to say that this is great news.

> I see it as being the same as with OpenJDK, in that:
>   - The entire project will be buildable and runnable and usable on free 
software

Good goal.

I have a question regarding applets and webstart. Is the plan to keep those bits 
of code closed? If Oracle is releasing the code for JFX, it seems strange to 
think that keeping the deployment code closed would offer Oracle a competitive 
advantage.

This affects the deployment story of JFX.

>   - We are likely to have some encumbrances that require a closed module for 
the time being for the binaries
> that we ship of JavaFX, for the sake of performance and such (e.g. T2K for 
fonts)
>   - We will continue to work hard to replace those bits with free code

I hope that this is true for JFX, but OpenJDK has a mixed track record in this 
respect. Replacements were provided, but I don't see a strong and consistent 
push from Oracle to make the replacements as good as or better than the closed 
versions.

Best,
Ismael



From brian.beck at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 08:22:01 2011
From: brian.beck at oracle.com (Brian Beck)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:22:01 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>

Hi Patrick:

I'm on the JavaFX UI Controls team.  Since the UI Controls will be the 
first part of the platform opened up, we are the guinea pigs for this 
project.  Let me add to what Rich said by giving you our day one plan.

Once the project is approved the new repo will be initialized with the 
UI code from the head of our internal repo.  At that point the UI code 
will be removed from our internal repo and we will shift to working in 
the open repo.  As Rich said, nobody wants to have to deal with  
different branches if we don't have to.

Initially we will have UI Controls in the open and the rest of the 
platform internal.  We will build the Oracle JavaFX bits from the 
combination of the open + internal and make those bits available on a 
weekly basis.  The open repo will be buildable without any of the 
internal source (obviously) but it will need the weekly binary bits we 
are producing.  This is unavoidable at first.  As the process continues 
we will take more  pieces out of the internal repo and add them to the 
open repo.  Ultimately the open repo will stand on its own with no need 
for Oracle's binaries.  How long this process takes is a little unclear 
at the moment.  Having been part of the opening of the JDK, I imagine 
we'll make progress quickly at first but there may be a few pieces that 
require more effort or that have to be replaced entirely.  We'll just 
have to see how it goes.  But again, as Rich pointed out, we have every 
reason to make this go quickly.  Nobody wants to deal with code in two 
places.

Hope this helps.

Brian.


On 10/27/11 11:18 PM, Richard Bair wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
>> How do you envision the transition vis-a-vis releases? Currently there
>> are binary bits to download from javafx.com. Will those be built, from
>> day 1, from the combination of open-source bits + binary bits? Or do
>> you plan to keep a closed, "private" repository/branch for releasable
>> items for the time being?
> I see it as being the same as with OpenJDK, in that:
>    - The entire project will be buildable and runnable and usable on free software
>    - We are likely to have some encumbrances that require a closed module for the time being for the binaries that we ship of JavaFX, for the sake of performance and such (e.g. T2K for fonts)
>    - We will continue to work hard to replace those bits with free code
>
> For example, OpenJDK uses Open Pisces, while the JRE / JDK builds from Oracle use Ductus. However he have definite goals to improve Open Pisces so we can replace Ductus. It costs us time and money to maintain two different implementations. It is in our interest to make the free code good enough to replace the non-free code. The same is true here. I hate having to maintain a public forest and private forest -- it complicates my life and slows down my team. I would much rather only have the public forest and do everything in one place -- the open. It just makes sense.
>
>> As far as planning and taking input from the community, JavaFX has
>> several years of development behind it, basically all driven from
>> within Sun/Oracle - how do you see _planning_ incorporating the
>> community? I ask this because until now, I've seen JavaFX as a sort of
>> product being developed by Oracle, rather than a part of the standard
>> library. As a product, it would be in the product owner's interest to
>> have full say over what is included and what is not, based on what
>> they believe will do well on the market. A more concrete question
>> would be: will all project plans, planned milestones, planned features
>> be made public in advance, and be open to discussion and feedback from
>> the community, and will the decision-making process around project
>> planning and features be made in the open?
> We plan on following the pattern of OpenJDK. We plan on using JEP's for describing features we'd like to see. Of course anybody in the community (I'd have to consult the bylaws but I would guess any Contributor?) can file JEP's as well. We keep pretty much everything else in JIRA -- every bug or feature that goes into a specific release is listed there as targeted at that release. Of course these decisions (what features go into which release) are fluid and JIRA should never be taken as the authoritative roadmap -- that would be on the project pages. Much of the back and forth of the design work is also in JIRA (not as much historically but more so now). Also worth mentioning is that our release schedule is tied to the Java SE release schedule, which makes sense.
>
> Obviously the decision of what will be worked on and what won't will largely be based on who is doing the work. Obviously the decision about whether to spend Oracle engineering on a particular problem is a decision that ultimately lies with Oracle, just as what features you would choose to work on is ultimately your choice. But if members of the community (for example you, or IBM, or whomever) decides they want a feature and will provide the engineering time (including testing and documentation) and the feature is not otherwise in conflict with the project, then without question I would be happy for such help and would adjust our plans accordingly.
>
> We expect to do things in an "open and meritocratic manner" as the bylaws state. But ultimately, as the bylaws state, the Project lead has final say on all technical matters. I would do my best to make sure the right technical choices are always made (I think JavaFX to date has a very strong track record of this).
>
> Thanks
> Richard



From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 08:36:18 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:36:18 -0300
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:22, Brian Beck <brian.beck at oracle.com> wrote:

> I'm on the JavaFX UI Controls team.  Since the UI Controls will be the
> first part of the platform opened up, we are the guinea pigs for this
> project.  Let me add to what Rich said by giving you our day one plan.
>
> Once the project is approved the new repo will be initialized with the UI
> code from the head of our internal repo.  At that point the UI code will be
> removed from our internal repo and we will shift to working in the open
> repo.
>

Brian,

What?s the ETA for the above?. What?s holding up the "approval"?. I mean,
is this a matter of days? weeks? hours?.

Thanks
FC


From fweimer at bfk.de  Fri Oct 28 08:51:56 2011
From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:51:56 +0000
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>
	(Fernando Cassia's message of "Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:36:18 -0300")
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de>

* Fernando Cassia:

> What?s the ETA for the above?. What?s holding up the "approval"?. I mean,
> is this a matter of days? weeks? hours?.

It seems to me that this is not actually a Project proposal, but a Group
proposal, so the Governing Board has to vote on it.  I don't know how
often Governing Board meets or if a special meeting can be scheduled for
this vote, and the time frame for accepting the proposal would depend on
that.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstra?e 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99


From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 08:56:50 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:56:50 -0300
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H7KX+qie5sjrv_ObxeCd1g+S6-ucCS=zmX+LbxGQZ1oZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:51, Florian Weimer <fweimer at bfk.de> wrote:

> It seems to me that this is not actually a Project proposal, but a Group
> proposal, so the Governing Board has to vote on it.  I don't know how
> often Governing Board meets or if a special meeting can be scheduled for
> this vote, and the time frame for accepting the proposal would depend on
> that.
>

Whatever needs to be done, I suggest it?s done quickly. :)
Before someone changes his mind... this news is really really good news.

FC

-- 
"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."
Richard Hamming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code


From brian.beck at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 09:05:17 2011
From: brian.beck at oracle.com (Brian Beck)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:05:17 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <CACGw4H4P43PPs4tMzBbJcbvc5bRbdd-hfw-e5MGeNDoDoF9e0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACGw4H4P43PPs4tMzBbJcbvc5bRbdd-hfw-e5MGeNDoDoF9e0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EAA704D.9070107@oracle.com>

No hold up really.  For some time we've been waiting for the new OpenJDK 
bylaws to come into effect.  That happened this week.  Now we're just 
following the process for creating a new project 
(http://openjdk.java.net/projects/).

This thread puts us at Optional Step 0 of the "Proposing a New Project" 
section.  Once this particular discussion winds up we will make our 
formal proposal to the announce at openjdk.java.net alias per Step 1.  That 
starts a two week call for votes.  Provided the voters are in favor we 
get started creating repos and filling them with code.  So we're talking 
weeks not days.

Brian.

On 10/28/11 01:36 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:22, Brian Beck<brian.beck at oracle.com  <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss>>  wrote:

>/  I'm on the JavaFX UI Controls team.  Since the UI Controls will be the
/>/  first part of the platform opened up, we are the guinea pigs for this
/>/  project.  Let me add to what Rich said by giving you our day one plan.
/>/
/>/  Once the project is approved the new repo will be initialized with the UI
/>/  code from the head of our internal repo.  At that point the UI code will be
/>/  removed from our internal repo and we will shift to working in the open
/>/  repo.
/>/
/
Brian,

What?s the ETA for the above?. What?s holding up the "approval"?. I mean,
is this a matter of days? weeks? hours?.

Thanks
FC




From brian.beck at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 09:09:32 2011
From: brian.beck at oracle.com (Brian Beck)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:09:32 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>	<4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>	<CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
Message-ID: <4EAA714C.9080102@oracle.com>

On 10/28/11 1:51 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> It seems to me that this is not actually a Project proposal, but a Group
> proposal, so the Governing Board has to vote on it.  I don't know how
> often Governing Board meets or if a special meeting can be scheduled for
> this vote, and the time frame for accepting the proposal would depend on
> that.
No we're making a Project proposal.  Thus the name of this thread.  :-)

Brian.



From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 09:11:48 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 06:11:48 -0300
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <4EAA704D.9070107@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACGw4H7_kBcWR+AvE=fW4=L1jP1QsAEr1xiQ9hrpNrw0fawgeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOeeQyp3rYtxyRSZM7zBwQ4Ce+KeNGbKaQ2by9_eEBbeVdtuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACGw4H4P43PPs4tMzBbJcbvc5bRbdd-hfw-e5MGeNDoDoF9e0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EAA704D.9070107@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H4O5Va=FC54ERWAMDnAKLSQJ6yZoJ=qqH_32Gpx+CKv0g@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 06:05, Brian Beck <brian.beck at oracle.com> wrote:

> That starts a two week call for votes.  Provided the voters are in favor
> we get started creating repos and filling them with code.  So we're talking
> weeks not days.
>
> Brian.
>

Thanks Brian.

I guess I?m both excited and impatient. And that?s a bad combo. ;)

Obviously, I?d rather see this done tomorrow.
Who in his sane mind could be against?

;-)
FC
-- 
"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."
Richard Hamming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code


From fweimer at bfk.de  Fri Oct 28 09:15:54 2011
From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:15:54 +0000
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <4EAA714C.9080102@oracle.com> (Brian Beck's message of "Fri, 28
	Oct 2011 02:09:32 -0700")
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4EAA714C.9080102@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <8239edpjcl.fsf@mid.bfk.de>

* Brian Beck:

> On 10/28/11 1:51 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> It seems to me that this is not actually a Project proposal, but a Group
>> proposal, so the Governing Board has to vote on it.  I don't know how
>> often Governing Board meets or if a special meeting can be scheduled for
>> this vote, and the time frame for accepting the proposal would depend on
>> that.

> No we're making a Project proposal.  Thus the name of this thread.
> :-)

Oh.  Which group do you expect to act as a sponsor?  Swing?

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstra?e 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99


From brian.beck at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 09:38:26 2011
From: brian.beck at oracle.com (Brian Beck)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:38:26 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <8239edpjcl.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>	<4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>	<CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>	<82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
	<4EAA714C.9080102@oracle.com> <8239edpjcl.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
Message-ID: <4EAA7812.7070807@oracle.com>

On 10/28/11 2:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> No we're making a Project proposal.  Thus the name of this thread.
>> :-)
> Oh.  Which group do you expect to act as a sponsor?  Swing?
>
As a former member of Sun's Swing Team, I would be honored if the Swing 
group chose to sponsor us.  :-)

Seriously, any group can sponsor this project.  Multiple groups may even 
choose to do so.  The Swing group seems like a reasonable choice.  
Perhaps we could hear from them?

Brian.


From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 10:40:54 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?bmV1Z2Vucy5saW1hc29mdHdhcmVAZ21haWwuY29t?=)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:40:54 +0200
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFByb2plY3QgUHJvcG9zYWw6IEpGWA==?=
Message-ID: <4eaa86be.6864e30a.7d16.ffffd581@mx.google.com>

Hi Richard,

So, we had a small internal meeting here at the LadyBug and we decided that we will contribute our work about the swing/javafx[1] integration if this will be accepted by the project :)

I am waiting forward for this to be possible!

Mario

[1] http://www.jroller.com/neugens/entry/embed_swing_inside_javafx_2

----- Reply message -----
Da: "Richard Bair" <richard.bair at oracle.com>
Data: ven, ott 28, 2011 08:41
Oggetto: Project Proposal: JFX
A: "neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com" <neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com>
Cc: "discuss at openjdk.java.net" <discuss at openjdk.java.net>


Thanks Mario, we have guys working on Linux full time. The current plan is to GA Linux second half of next year, beta in the first half. We are eager to get full support on Mac, windows, and Linux as soon as possible. I am hoping that we can get Glass out in the open without too much delay so folks like yourself could help out :-) and maybe help bring in the GA date!

Richard

On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:32 PM, neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com<neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow, that's a great great news!
> 
> I'm one if those long time followers, so I know since how much time this had been into discussion.
> 
> One suggestion: please, please! release the linux version quickly!
> 
> I also think it should be a separate project not included and merged (but perhaps bundled) with the core jdk.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mario
> 
> ----- Reply message -----
> Da: "Richard Bair" <richard.bair at oracle.com>
> Data: ven, ott 28, 2011 01:17
> Oggetto: Project Proposal: JFX
> A: <discuss at openjdk.java.net>
> 
> Hi OpenJDK community!
> 
> As announced at JavaOne we (Oracle) would love to contribute JavaFX into OpenJDK as a new project called "JFX". For some who have been following along, we've talked about this for a long time but finally (finally!) we're ready to act on it and open source the platform. We are not just interested in open sourcing the code, however, we also want to move into an open development model. We already have an open bug database[1]. The project uses Mercurial, so we should fit in pretty well into OpenJDK.
> 
> Our basic motivation for wanting to open source JFX is to built a community and ecosystem support and adoption around JavaFX by increasing transparency. Of course we are also interested in getting patches and early feedback from the community[2]! Our goal is to provide the next-generation Java client toolkit, and JFX would be the next step along that path, which hopefully culminates in a JSR for the Java 9 timeframe and including JFX as proper part of the JDK. I would be the initial Project lead for JFX.
> 
> A little bit about our project:
> It is a significant contribution to the corpus of open source code
> It includes over 6000+ public API members (methods / constructors / etc)
> It includes over 11,500 unit tests
> Core libraries such as observable collections and binding
> Scene graph, effects, graphics
> CSS support for JavaFX
> Media
> WebView
> Prism (hardware accelerated graphics, including openGL and D3D and java2D implementations)
> Glass (windowing system, base porting layer, including mac, linux, and windows implementations)
> UI Controls and Charts
> 
> Our builds are all Ant, with JUnit for testing (there is some 'make' in there for native parts). We also have NetBeans projects setup for each area. There is a lot of code that we'll be releasing, so as a matter of practicality we're going to release different parts of JavaFX over the course of the next few months, starting with UI controls followed by charts. We'll put up a full roadmap onto our project pages, should we be approved to become part of OpenJDK. We'll make sure that the open source code is always fully buildable by anybody using the sources + a binary plug (which will become unnecessary as we open source the remaining pieces). All of the above listed modules will be open sourced and fully buildable.
> 
> What do you think? I'd love to hear any issues and hopefully be able to resolve those prior to requesting an official vote.
> 
> Thanks
> Richard
> 
> [1] http://javafx-jira.kenai.com
> [2] A good example of the sort of interesting stuff going on out there can be found here: http://jroller.com/neugens/entry/embed_swing_inside_javafx_2
> 

From fcassia at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 10:49:14 2011
From: fcassia at gmail.com (Fernando Cassia)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:49:14 -0300
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <4EAA7812.7070807@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>
	<CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4EAA714C.9080102@oracle.com>
	<8239edpjcl.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4EAA7812.7070807@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CACGw4H6QU2OKA71cOGaaqVhcGUBtdx4Luy7qkzn7pkP9pnkjfA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 06:38, Brian Beck <brian.beck at oracle.com> wrote:

>
> Seriously, any group can sponsor this project.  Multiple groups may even
> choose to do so.  The Swing group seems like a reasonable choice.  Perhaps
> we could hear from them?


This is one of the few textbook examples where the internet actually
*slows* things down. ;)
Perhaps lifting a phone and dialing an extension number within ORCL would
be faster.

*JOKE* *JOKE.*

;-)
FC


From mark at klomp.org  Fri Oct 28 12:06:34 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:06:34 +0200
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <1319803595.31834.10.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 16:17 -0700, Richard Bair wrote:
> As announced at JavaOne we (Oracle) would love to contribute JavaFX
> into OpenJDK as a new project called "JFX". For some who have been
> following along, we've talked about this for a long time but finally
> (finally!) we're ready to act on it and open source the platform. We
> are not just interested in open sourcing the code, however, we also
> want to move into an open development model. We already have an open
> bug database[1]. The project uses Mercurial, so we should fit in
> pretty well into OpenJDK.

That sounds awesome!

I admit that I had given up on JavaFX back in 2008 when it looked like
it was just going to close up and added horrible proprietary licensing
terms [1]. This is a very nice and refreshing change!

I do want to echo some of Ismael's questions/concerns though. What is
the deal with the deployment tools? We got somewhat burned in the past
when big announcements were made that the applet plugin and webstart
tools would be liberated, but then nothing actually happened [2].

We were very lucky back then that people did keep on working on free
replacements and through icedtea-web we do now have free deployment
tools that can be shipped with openjdk.

So, forgive me for asking, but how strong is your commitment to really
get rid of all the proprietary binary blobs that are currently needed
for JavaFX? And are there any hidden gotchas for which the community
will have to help to provide free replacements?

Thanks,

Mark

[1]
https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2008/08/01/the-javafx-trap/
[2]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2009-June/000607.html


From Alexander.Potochkin at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 13:31:44 2011
From: Alexander.Potochkin at oracle.com (Alexander Potochkin)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:31:44 +0400
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <4EAA7812.7070807@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>	<4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>	<CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>	<82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
	<4EAA714C.9080102@oracle.com> <8239edpjcl.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
	<4EAA7812.7070807@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4EAAAEC0.6010401@oracle.com>

Hello Brian
> On 10/28/11 2:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> No we're making a Project proposal.  Thus the name of this thread.
>>> :-)
>> Oh.  Which group do you expect to act as a sponsor?  Swing?
>>
> As a former member of Sun's Swing Team, I would be honored if the
> Swing group chose to sponsor us.  :-)
>
> Seriously, any group can sponsor this project.  Multiple groups may
> even choose to do so.  The Swing group seems like a reasonable
> choice.  Perhaps we could hear from them?

Yes!

As the Swing team lead I should say that we love the idea to sponsor 
this project,
please let me know what should I do to make it happen

Thanks
alexp

>
> Brian.



From volker.simonis at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 18:19:12 2011
From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:19:12 +0200
Subject: Successfully building 32- and 64-bit OpenJDK 8 on WinXP/64bit with
	free tools only
Message-ID: <CA+3eh11jeTRBK6pVkYnuCB181Od9j8opAXde=AqCVGwTjHcJ5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I've put together a short description on how to build both, a 64- and
a 32-bit version of OpenJDK 8 on a plain, vanilla WindowsXP 64-bit
operating system using only free (as in free beer) tools:

http://weblogs.java.net/blog/simonis/archive/2011/10/28/yaojowbi-yet-another-openjdk-windows-build-instruction

It seems as if  it is not that hard anymore nowadays:)

Regards,
Volker


From richard.bair at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 18:43:36 2011
From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:43:36 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <loom.20111028T101258-925@post.gmane.org>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<loom.20111028T101258-925@post.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <01CF5D39-5767-4625-899A-97A9FF0AB959@oracle.com>

Hi,

>> I see it as being the same as with OpenJDK, in that:
>>  - The entire project will be buildable and runnable and usable on free 
> software
> 
> Good goal.
> 
> I have a question regarding applets and webstart. Is the plan to keep those bits 
> of code closed? If Oracle is releasing the code for JFX, it seems strange to 
> think that keeping the deployment code closed would offer Oracle a competitive 
> advantage.
> 
> This affects the deployment story of JFX.

Adam mentioned at JavaOne (I don't remember the context) that plugin will go open source too. I don't have a timeline for that, though it is really a question for JDK as opposed to JavaFX.

>>  - We are likely to have some encumbrances that require a closed module for 
> the time being for the binaries
>> that we ship of JavaFX, for the sake of performance and such (e.g. T2K for 
> fonts)
>>  - We will continue to work hard to replace those bits with free code
> 
> I hope that this is true for JFX, but OpenJDK has a mixed track record in this 
> respect. Replacements were provided, but I don't see a strong and consistent 
> push from Oracle to make the replacements as good as or better than the closed 
> versions.

Really we want to get away from the binary non-free parts, but in some cases it requires a very large investment to get the free versions up to the level of the non-free ones. Believe me, I'd drop ductus tomorrow if open Pisces was ready to replace it.

Cheers
Richard

From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 19:32:34 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:32:34 +0200
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <01CF5D39-5767-4625-899A-97A9FF0AB959@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<loom.20111028T101258-925@post.gmane.org>
	<01CF5D39-5767-4625-899A-97A9FF0AB959@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <7F0AE1FC-7692-4A40-9A15-23A954B46B18@gmail.com>

Il giorno 28/ott/2011, alle ore 20:43, Richard Bair ha scritto:
> Hi,
> 
>>> I see it as being the same as with OpenJDK, in that:
>>> - The entire project will be buildable and runnable and usable on free 
>> software
>> 
>> Good goal.
>> 
>> I have a question regarding applets and webstart. Is the plan to keep those bits 
>> of code closed? If Oracle is releasing the code for JFX, it seems strange to 
>> think that keeping the deployment code closed would offer Oracle a competitive 
>> advantage.
>> 
>> This affects the deployment story of JFX.
> 
> Adam mentioned at JavaOne (I don't remember the context) that plugin will go open source too. I don't have a timeline for that, though it is really a question for JDK as opposed to JavaFX.
> 
>>> - We are likely to have some encumbrances that require a closed module for 
>> the time being for the binaries
>>> that we ship of JavaFX, for the sake of performance and such (e.g. T2K for 
>> fonts)
>>> - We will continue to work hard to replace those bits with free code
>> 
>> I hope that this is true for JFX, but OpenJDK has a mixed track record in this 
>> respect. Replacements were provided, but I don't see a strong and consistent 
>> push from Oracle to make the replacements as good as or better than the closed 
>> versions.
> 
> Really we want to get away from the binary non-free parts, but in some cases it requires a very large investment to get the free versions up to the level of the non-free ones. Believe me, I'd drop ductus tomorrow if open Pisces was ready to replace it.
> 
> Cheers
> Richard


Hi Richard,

We as a "Community" can help with that, see what Danis is doing or example with Pisces.

I think those are all solvable problems giving some guidance, especially important since this code in this area is sometime not documented at all, sometime very hard to read, and sometime just magic ;) and definitely code that falls in an area that doesn't have many expert around the globe that can contribute effective code (but most of them are in this mailing list and involved in this thread!).

As for the plugin, during the pass years many nice things had been contributed, like CacioWeb or the amazing job Deepak is doing with the IcedTea plugin. That ultimately boils down to your internal policies and the relationship you have with your customers of course, but I believe that very good quality alternatives are already there and are cost effective, really.

Ductus seems vey good and in some cases better than Pisces, but I have used OpenJDK and the closed JDK for years now, on both Linux and Windows (and now Mac) environments, I believe that the free replacement is catching up quickly, with the additional benefit of long term maintainability that the binary equivalent doesn't have. Ultimately is more a cost for you to maintain ductus than collaborate with us to improve Pisces :)

Anyway, things are getting better and better every day, to be honest, I'm very impressed to see how well Oracle is doing despite being a very slow start, and I'm very happy people like Phil and Jim and the many 2D/Swing devs are around (just to speak about that specific area of course), since they are extremely helpful and collaborative all the time.

Now you only need to remove that clickthrough stuff I was mentioning in an earlier mail and we'll take care to make OpenJavaFX shine ;)

Cheers,
Mario
---
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.ladybug-studio.com

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
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 richard.bair at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 21:45:22 2011
From: richard.bair at oracle.com (Richard Bair)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:45:22 -0700
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <7F0AE1FC-7692-4A40-9A15-23A954B46B18@gmail.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<loom.20111028T101258-925@post.gmane.org>
	<01CF5D39-5767-4625-899A-97A9FF0AB959@oracle.com>
	<7F0AE1FC-7692-4A40-9A15-23A954B46B18@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0AA113EF-A115-440A-AD52-D470B582AFFF@oracle.com>

> Now you only need to remove that clickthrough stuff I was mentioning in an earlier mail and we'll take care to make OpenJavaFX shine ;)

Is this what you wanted?

javafx4you (@javafx4you)
10/28/11 12:07 PM
We've heard you, and we've fixed it! JavaFX 2.0 download no longer requires OTN registration bit.ly/mGUCXT #JavaFX

Cheers
Richard

From neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 21:57:25 2011
From: neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com (Mario Torre)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:57:25 +0200
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <0AA113EF-A115-440A-AD52-D470B582AFFF@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<loom.20111028T101258-925@post.gmane.org>
	<01CF5D39-5767-4625-899A-97A9FF0AB959@oracle.com>
	<7F0AE1FC-7692-4A40-9A15-23A954B46B18@gmail.com>
	<0AA113EF-A115-440A-AD52-D470B582AFFF@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CA425437-7A16-4ADD-8959-FD327B669AE2@gmail.com>

Il giorno 28/ott/2011, alle ore 23:45, Richard Bair ha scritto:
> 
>> Now you only need to remove that clickthrough stuff I was mentioning in an earlier mail and we'll take care to make OpenJavaFX shine ;)
> 
> Is this what you wanted?
> 
> javafx4you (@javafx4you)
> 10/28/11 12:07 PM
> We've heard you, and we've fixed it! JavaFX 2.0 download no longer requires OTN registration bit.ly/mGUCXT #JavaFX
> 
> Cheers
> Richard

Yeah!

You guys rock! :)

Mario
---
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.ladybug-studio.com

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
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 mark at klomp.org  Fri Oct 28 22:11:11 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:11:11 +0200
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <0AA113EF-A115-440A-AD52-D470B582AFFF@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<loom.20111028T101258-925@post.gmane.org>
	<01CF5D39-5767-4625-899A-97A9FF0AB959@oracle.com>
	<7F0AE1FC-7692-4A40-9A15-23A954B46B18@gmail.com>
	<0AA113EF-A115-440A-AD52-D470B582AFFF@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <1319839871.31834.19.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

Hi Richard,

On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 14:45 -0700, Richard Bair wrote:
> > Now you only need to remove that clickthrough stuff I was mentioning in an earlier mail and we'll take care to make OpenJavaFX shine ;)
> 
> Is this what you wanted?
> 
> javafx4you (@javafx4you)
> 10/28/11 12:07 PM
> We've heard you, and we've fixed it! JavaFX 2.0 download no longer requires OTN registration bit.ly/mGUCXT #JavaFX

Looks much better, thanks! But there is still a nasty click-through
license that unfortunately seems to make it impossible to use it when
hacking on some javafx/openjdk hybrid since it seems to prevent usage on
various devices that seem specifically where we would love to to bring
java and javafx functionality to. And because it prevents trying to
figure out how thing work to write free replacements and/or for hacking
on any of the core classes. Could you please remove those restrictions.
Or better yet, loose the whole click-through. Specifically:

- The use of Software in systems and solutions that provide dedicated
functionality (other than as mentioned above) or designed for use in
embedded or function-specific software applications, for example but not
limited to: Software embedded in or bundled with industrial control
systems, wireless mobile telephones, wireless handheld devices,
netbooks, kiosks, TV/STB, Blu-ray Disc devices, telematics and network
control switching equipment, printers and storage management systems,
and other related systems are excluded from this definition and not
licensed under this Agreement.

- you may not modify, decompile, or reverse engineer Software

- You may not create, modify, or change the behavior of, or authorize
your licensees to create, modify, or change the behavior of, classes,
interfaces, or subpackages that are in any way identified as "java",
"javax", "sun", ?oracle? or similar convention as   specified by Oracle
in any naming convention designation.

Thanks,

Mark


From simon at webmink.com  Fri Oct 28 22:53:20 2011
From: simon at webmink.com (Simon Phipps)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:53:20 +0100
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <91E2250A-654A-4282-8CE9-6B418F37059F@webmink.com>

Excellent move, Richard, one which you probably know I've been advocating from the very beginning of JavaFX :-)  Bravo.

S.



On 28 Oct 2011, at 00:17, Richard Bair wrote:

> Hi OpenJDK community!
> 
> As announced at JavaOne we (Oracle) would love to contribute JavaFX into OpenJDK as a new project called "JFX". For some who have been following along, we've talked about this for a long time but finally (finally!) we're ready to act on it and open source the platform. We are not just interested in open sourcing the code, however, we also want to move into an open development model. We already have an open bug database[1]. The project uses Mercurial, so we should fit in pretty well into OpenJDK.
> 
> Our basic motivation for wanting to open source JFX is to built a community and ecosystem support and adoption around JavaFX by increasing transparency. Of course we are also interested in getting patches and early feedback from the community[2]! Our goal is to provide the next-generation Java client toolkit, and JFX would be the next step along that path, which hopefully culminates in a JSR for the Java 9 timeframe and including JFX as proper part of the JDK. I would be the initial Project lead for JFX.
> 
> A little bit about our project:
> It is a significant contribution to the corpus of open source code
> It includes over 6000+ public API members (methods / constructors / etc)
> It includes over 11,500 unit tests
> Core libraries such as observable collections and binding
> Scene graph, effects, graphics
> CSS support for JavaFX
> Media
> WebView
> Prism (hardware accelerated graphics, including openGL and D3D and java2D implementations)
> Glass (windowing system, base porting layer, including mac, linux, and windows implementations)
> UI Controls and Charts
> 
> Our builds are all Ant, with JUnit for testing (there is some 'make' in there for native parts). We also have NetBeans projects setup for each area. There is a lot of code that we'll be releasing, so as a matter of practicality we're going to release different parts of JavaFX over the course of the next few months, starting with UI controls followed by charts. We'll put up a full roadmap onto our project pages, should we be approved to become part of OpenJDK. We'll make sure that the open source code is always fully buildable by anybody using the sources + a binary plug (which will become unnecessary as we open source the remaining pieces). All of the above listed modules will be open sourced and fully buildable.
> 
> What do you think? I'd love to hear any issues and hopefully be able to resolve those prior to requesting an official vote.
> 
> Thanks
> Richard
> 
> [1] http://javafx-jira.kenai.com
> [2] A good example of the sort of interesting stuff going on out there can be found here: http://jroller.com/neugens/entry/embed_swing_inside_javafx_2



From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Sat Oct 29 08:21:59 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 10:21:59 +0200
Subject: Successfully building 32- and 64-bit OpenJDK 8 on WinXP/64bit
	with free tools only
In-Reply-To: <CA+3eh11jeTRBK6pVkYnuCB181Od9j8opAXde=AqCVGwTjHcJ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+3eh11jeTRBK6pVkYnuCB181Od9j8opAXde=AqCVGwTjHcJ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY16OY3Jt2Pe6W8faFhRYZHCPCHh18fJn47_1uvR_+uw6g@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting.

Wondering if we could do the same for OS/X.

Is it supported allready ?

2011/10/28 Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> I've put together a short description on how to build both, a 64- and
> a 32-bit version of OpenJDK 8 on a plain, vanilla WindowsXP 64-bit
> operating system using only free (as in free beer) tools:
>
> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/simonis/archive/2011/10/28/yaojowbi-yet-another-openjdk-windows-build-instruction
>
> It seems as if ?it is not that hard anymore nowadays:)
>
> Regards,
> Volker
>


From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com  Sat Oct 29 11:11:44 2011
From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:11:44 +0100
Subject: Successfully building 32- and 64-bit OpenJDK 8 on WinXP/64bit
	with free tools only
In-Reply-To: <CALyUpY16OY3Jt2Pe6W8faFhRYZHCPCHh18fJn47_1uvR_+uw6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+3eh11jeTRBK6pVkYnuCB181Od9j8opAXde=AqCVGwTjHcJ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY16OY3Jt2Pe6W8faFhRYZHCPCHh18fJn47_1uvR_+uw6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABKW8RiiLq+CfX5dXoJHTc+=b38nZNf3T_A_MgwTtWdwMwkM=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Henri,

Stephen Bannasch produces OSX builds as tarballs, and posts about them
on mlvm-dev.

They aren't .dmg-based installers, so people have to understand how to
integrate them manually (and e.g. set JAVA_HOME) to use them, but I've
managed to use them from the command line very successfully.

The latest one is:

http://www.concord.org/~sbannasch/mlvm/java-1.8.0-internal-mlvm-2011_10_22.tar.gz

Stephen - could you perhaps post news of your builds to these
mailgroups as well?

Thanks,

Ben


On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> Wondering if we could do the same for OS/X.
>
> Is it supported allready ?
>
> 2011/10/28 Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've put together a short description on how to build both, a 64- and
>> a 32-bit version of OpenJDK 8 on a plain, vanilla WindowsXP 64-bit
>> operating system using only free (as in free beer) tools:
>>
>> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/simonis/archive/2011/10/28/yaojowbi-yet-another-openjdk-windows-build-instruction
>>
>> It seems as if ?it is not that hard anymore nowadays:)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Volker
>>
>


From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Sat Oct 29 11:33:07 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:33:07 +0200
Subject: Successfully building 32- and 64-bit OpenJDK 8 on WinXP/64bit
	with free tools only
In-Reply-To: <CABKW8RiiLq+CfX5dXoJHTc+=b38nZNf3T_A_MgwTtWdwMwkM=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+3eh11jeTRBK6pVkYnuCB181Od9j8opAXde=AqCVGwTjHcJ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY16OY3Jt2Pe6W8faFhRYZHCPCHh18fJn47_1uvR_+uw6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RiiLq+CfX5dXoJHTc+=b38nZNf3T_A_MgwTtWdwMwkM=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9672D49C-3DD7-4C3A-A821-1FEFE7FB48B8@gmail.com>

Guys, I'll be more than happy to add JDK8 to OpenJDK build project and package them with DMG installer. 

Build process available (and open sourceable) ?

Le 29 oct. 2011 ? 13:11, Ben Evans <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> a ?crit :

> Hi Henri,
> 
> Stephen Bannasch produces OSX builds as tarballs, and posts about them
> on mlvm-dev.
> 
> They aren't .dmg-based installers, so people have to understand how to
> integrate them manually (and e.g. set JAVA_HOME) to use them, but I've
> managed to use them from the command line very successfully.
> 
> The latest one is:
> 
> http://www.concord.org/~sbannasch/mlvm/java-1.8.0-internal-mlvm-2011_10_22.tar.gz
> 
> Stephen - could you perhaps post news of your builds to these
> mailgroups as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Interesting.
>> 
>> Wondering if we could do the same for OS/X.
>> 
>> Is it supported allready ?
>> 
>> 2011/10/28 Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com>:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I've put together a short description on how to build both, a 64- and
>>> a 32-bit version of OpenJDK 8 on a plain, vanilla WindowsXP 64-bit
>>> operating system using only free (as in free beer) tools:
>>> 
>>> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/simonis/archive/2011/10/28/yaojowbi-yet-another-openjdk-windows-build-instruction
>>> 
>>> It seems as if  it is not that hard anymore nowadays:)
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Volker
>>> 
>> 


From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com  Sat Oct 29 12:18:09 2011
From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:18:09 +0100
Subject: Successfully building 32- and 64-bit OpenJDK 8 on WinXP/64bit
	with free tools only
In-Reply-To: <9672D49C-3DD7-4C3A-A821-1FEFE7FB48B8@gmail.com>
References: <CA+3eh11jeTRBK6pVkYnuCB181Od9j8opAXde=AqCVGwTjHcJ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY16OY3Jt2Pe6W8faFhRYZHCPCHh18fJn47_1uvR_+uw6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RiiLq+CfX5dXoJHTc+=b38nZNf3T_A_MgwTtWdwMwkM=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<9672D49C-3DD7-4C3A-A821-1FEFE7FB48B8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABKW8Rgxwq87DmEZd0hKV1j_HJVgGV42c=joA_GngYNO05zfMw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Henri,

Could you do this for the mlvm-dev builds as well? I know a lot of the
MLVM guys use Macs, and having this available (especially as we start
looking at things like coroutines) would be really useful.

(Adding mlvm-dev).

Thanks,

Ben

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
> Guys, I'll be more than happy to add JDK8 to OpenJDK build project and package them with DMG installer.
>
> Build process available (and open sourceable) ?
>
> Le 29 oct. 2011 ? 13:11, Ben Evans <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> a ?crit :
>
>> Hi Henri,
>>
>> Stephen Bannasch produces OSX builds as tarballs, and posts about them
>> on mlvm-dev.
>>
>> They aren't .dmg-based installers, so people have to understand how to
>> integrate them manually (and e.g. set JAVA_HOME) to use them, but I've
>> managed to use them from the command line very successfully.
>>
>> The latest one is:
>>
>> http://www.concord.org/~sbannasch/mlvm/java-1.8.0-internal-mlvm-2011_10_22.tar.gz
>>
>> Stephen - could you perhaps post news of your builds to these
>> mailgroups as well?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> Wondering if we could do the same for OS/X.
>>>
>>> Is it supported allready ?
>>>
>>> 2011/10/28 Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've put together a short description on how to build both, a 64- and
>>>> a 32-bit version of OpenJDK 8 on a plain, vanilla WindowsXP 64-bit
>>>> operating system using only free (as in free beer) tools:
>>>>
>>>> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/simonis/archive/2011/10/28/yaojowbi-yet-another-openjdk-windows-build-instruction
>>>>
>>>> It seems as if ?it is not that hard anymore nowadays:)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Volker
>>>>
>>>
>


From stephen.bannasch at deanbrook.org  Sat Oct 29 12:59:39 2011
From: stephen.bannasch at deanbrook.org (Stephen Bannasch)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:59:39 -0400
Subject: Successfully building 32- and 64-bit OpenJDK 8 on WinXP/64bit
	with free tools only
In-Reply-To: <9672D49C-3DD7-4C3A-A821-1FEFE7FB48B8@gmail.com>
References: <CA+3eh11jeTRBK6pVkYnuCB181Od9j8opAXde=AqCVGwTjHcJ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY16OY3Jt2Pe6W8faFhRYZHCPCHh18fJn47_1uvR_+uw6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RiiLq+CfX5dXoJHTc+=b38nZNf3T_A_MgwTtWdwMwkM=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<9672D49C-3DD7-4C3A-A821-1FEFE7FB48B8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240806cad1a7c95f71@[192.168.1.122]>

At 1:33 PM +0200 10/29/11, Henri Gomez wrote:
>Guys, I'll be more than happy to add JDK8 to OpenJDK build project and package them with DMG installer.
>
>Build process available (and open sourceable) ?

Hi Henri,

All my scripts for building and testing mlvm are here: http://gist.github.com/243072

They work on my Mac OS X 10.6.8 system.
 
MLVM is based on jdk8 but also uses a anther specific MLVM patch forest.

I've been meaning to convert them to build dmgs but haven't gotten to it yet.

I know you have been building dmgs. Do you have any  suggestions for me or a pointer to the right section in your script Ican adapt.

Also if anything is helpful in my scripts please use/adapt them of course.



From henri.gomez at gmail.com  Sat Oct 29 15:43:00 2011
From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:43:00 +0200
Subject: Successfully building 32- and 64-bit OpenJDK 8 on WinXP/64bit
	with free tools only
In-Reply-To: <p06240806cad1a7c95f71@192.168.1.122>
References: <CA+3eh11jeTRBK6pVkYnuCB181Od9j8opAXde=AqCVGwTjHcJ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALyUpY16OY3Jt2Pe6W8faFhRYZHCPCHh18fJn47_1uvR_+uw6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABKW8RiiLq+CfX5dXoJHTc+=b38nZNf3T_A_MgwTtWdwMwkM=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<9672D49C-3DD7-4C3A-A821-1FEFE7FB48B8@gmail.com>
	<p06240806cad1a7c95f71@192.168.1.122>
Message-ID: <CALyUpY3Kfz2X9tMJ-LWK+DMi5waccBk7iytg7+hye=u=HYa5DA@mail.gmail.com>

> Hi Henri,

Hi Stephen

> All my scripts for building and testing mlvm are here: http://gist.github.com/243072

Seen. I learn many things from your scripts from OpenJDK 7 (bsd-port)
in the past :)

> They work on my Mac OS X 10.6.8 system.

Same here

> MLVM is based on jdk8 but also uses a anther specific MLVM patch forest.

Notice them line 114 of update.sh

> I've been meaning to convert them to build dmgs but haven't gotten to it yet.
> I know you have been building dmgs. Do you have any ?suggestions for me or a pointer to the right section in your script Ican adapt.

Just take a look here :
http://code.google.com/p/openjdk-osx-build/source/browse/trunk/packageosxu.sh

This script handle all the packaging part.

Note, it download DMG template from
http://openjdk-osx-build.googlecode.com/svn/template.

> Also if anything is helpful in my scripts please use/adapt them of course.

Stephen, I think there should be very soon OpenJDK 8 for OS/X DMG on
http://code.google.com/p/openjdk-osx-build :)


From mlists at juma.me.uk  Sun Oct 30 09:39:10 2011
From: mlists at juma.me.uk (Ismael Juma)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:39:10 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>
	<loom.20111028T101258-925@post.gmane.org>
	<01CF5D39-5767-4625-899A-97A9FF0AB959@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <loom.20111030T102734-167@post.gmane.org>

Richard Bair <richard.bair at ...> writes:
> Adam mentioned at JavaOne (I don't remember the context) that plugin will go 
open source too.

Interesting. It would be good news, if it happens. :)

> I don't have a
> timeline for that, though it is really a question for JDK as opposed to 
JavaFX.

Sure.

> Really we want to get away from the binary non-free parts, but in some cases 
it requires a very large
> investment to get the free versions up to the level of the non-free ones.

Definitely. This is indeed the point that I wanted to surface. Sometimes working 
on releasing more code as open-source (in the case of JFX) or improving open 
versions (in the case of the JDK) may be given less priority than adding 
features (for example). It's understandable and it's a matter of hitting the 
right balance.

Personally, I believe that the balance hasn't been right when it comes to open 
Pisces, and I hope you guys do better with JFX (Oracle seems to be moving in the 
right direction, so I'm hopeful).

> Believe me, I'd drop ductus tomorrow if open Pisces was ready to replace it.

I know. :) You would probably have open-sourced JFX earlier too. ;)

Best,
Ismael



From martijnverburg at gmail.com  Sun Oct 30 10:02:04 2011
From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:02:04 +0000
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAP7YuASimg6iRD-7u5tZ-13-K-oA6YG8NhJBMcHGSUpg+XMA0g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Richard,

One really strong step forward for JavaFX as a viable client
technology and another strong step from Oracle in making it an open
platform which benefits all.  Kudos.

Martijn

On 28 October 2011 00:17, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi OpenJDK community!
>
> As announced at JavaOne we (Oracle) would love to contribute JavaFX into OpenJDK as a new project called "JFX". For some who have been following along, we've talked about this for a long time but finally (finally!) we're ready to act on it and open source the platform. We are not just interested in open sourcing the code, however, we also want to move into an open development model. We already have an open bug database[1]. The project uses Mercurial, so we should fit in pretty well into OpenJDK.
>
> Our basic motivation for wanting to open source JFX is to built a community and ecosystem support and adoption around JavaFX by increasing transparency. Of course we are also interested in getting patches and early feedback from the community[2]! Our goal is to provide the next-generation Java client toolkit, and JFX would be the next step along that path, which hopefully culminates in a JSR for the Java 9 timeframe and including JFX as proper part of the JDK. I would be the initial Project lead for JFX.
>
> A little bit about our project:
> It is a significant contribution to the corpus of open source code
> It includes over 6000+ public API members (methods / constructors / etc)
> It includes over 11,500 unit tests
> Core libraries such as observable collections and binding
> Scene graph, effects, graphics
> CSS support for JavaFX
> Media
> WebView
> Prism (hardware accelerated graphics, including openGL and D3D and java2D implementations)
> Glass (windowing system, base porting layer, including mac, linux, and windows implementations)
> UI Controls and Charts
>
> Our builds are all Ant, with JUnit for testing (there is some 'make' in there for native parts). We also have NetBeans projects setup for each area. There is a lot of code that we'll be releasing, so as a matter of practicality we're going to release different parts of JavaFX over the course of the next few months, starting with UI controls followed by charts. We'll put up a full roadmap onto our project pages, should we be approved to become part of OpenJDK. We'll make sure that the open source code is always fully buildable by anybody using the sources + a binary plug (which will become unnecessary as we open source the remaining pieces). All of the above listed modules will be open sourced and fully buildable.
>
> What do you think? I'd love to hear any issues and hopefully be able to resolve those prior to requesting an official vote.
>
> Thanks
> Richard
>
> [1] http://javafx-jira.kenai.com
> [2] A good example of the sort of interesting stuff going on out there can be found here: http://jroller.com/neugens/entry/embed_swing_inside_javafx_2


From mark at klomp.org  Mon Oct 31 11:51:05 2011
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:51:05 +0100
Subject: Rhino source code (Was: Rhino build support)
In-Reply-To: <1319705202.5037.88.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
References: <20111018162208.A9EF31041@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<1318960890.8669.60.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<CALyUpY00ckkGMPyt92PQPJg7BnLDmJ1_11NrC94i-LGxEQxNqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1319012913.8669.68.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<CALyUpY29TXC2FOqwsXEtjVhOr8r0W8v5Ld9O-eyBsw9M7EGyGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1319705202.5037.88.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <1320061865.3388.30.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>

Hi Mark,

This might have slipped through with all the excitement around JavaFX
being liberated and all the new JEPs. But it would really help us if you
could take a quick peek and point us in the right direction.

It would be good for us to make sure we all distribute the same
javax.script javascript support, whether it is ClosedJDK, OpenJDK,
IcedTea or the MacOSX port. Users probably would like to be sure it is
all compatible and supports the same features.

On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 10:46 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 08:48 +0200, Henri Gomez wrote:
> > > I haven't been able to find the source code for the Rhino variant
> > > shipped with the Oracle ClosedJDK. Since it is distributed under the
> > > GPL/MPL, I assume the source code is somewhere for users to use, but I
> > > might have missed where. Someone from Oracle (Mark R.?) might know where
> > > the sources can be fetched from.
> > 
> > What's the status about this ?
> 
> I forgot to poke Mark Reinhold again.
> Lets do that now :)
> 
> Mark, could you point us to the sources of the Rhino variant as shipped
> with the Oracle ClosedJDK?

Maybe it is already in the distribution legal notes somewhere, but we
looked and cannot find it (maybe we looked in the wrong place). Assuming
you are redistributing Rhino under the GPL/MPL there really should at
least be a conspicuous notice stating where to find the modifications
used to make the binary Oracle is distributing (MPL section 3.6 and/or
GPL section 3).

Thanks,

Mark


From mark.reinhold at oracle.com  Mon Oct 31 14:53:56 2011
From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:53:56 -0700
Subject: Rhino source code (Was: Rhino build support)
In-Reply-To: mark@klomp.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:51:05 BST;
	<1320061865.3388.30.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <20111031145356.80545DD3@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

2011/10/31 4:51 -0700, mark at klomp.org:
> This might have slipped through with all the excitement around JavaFX
> being liberated and all the new JEPs. But it would really help us if you
> could take a quick peek and point us in the right direction.
> 
> It would be good for us to make sure we all distribute the same
> javax.script javascript support, whether it is ClosedJDK, OpenJDK,
> IcedTea or the MacOSX port. Users probably would like to be sure it is
> all compatible and supports the same features.

Sundar -- Could you please summarize the changes you made to the Rhino
code when you last updated the copy used in the Oracle builds?  Thanks.

> Maybe it is already in the distribution legal notes somewhere, but we
> looked and cannot find it (maybe we looked in the wrong place). Assuming
> you are redistributing Rhino under the GPL/MPL there really should at
> least be a conspicuous notice stating where to find the modifications
> used to make the binary Oracle is distributing (MPL section 3.6 and/or
> GPL section 3).

That should be in the Oracle JDK 7 release notes, but I don't see it,
so I'll ask someone to take care of it.

- Mark


From aph at redhat.com  Mon Oct 31 18:08:37 2011
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:08:37 +0000
Subject: OpenJDK bug database: JIRA pilot deployment
In-Reply-To: <20111031173508.365E9DD3@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20111031173508.365E9DD3@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <4EAEE425.40503@redhat.com>

On 10/31/2011 05:35 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> We hope to deploy a JIRA pilot instance in the next few months for use
> by non-JDK Projects within OpenJDK.  If that goes well then we'd look
> to migrate the current JDK bug corpus from Oracle's legacy internal
> system to JIRA by mid-2012.

Ah, excellent.  I look forward to trying it.

Thanks,
Andrew.


From Alexander.Potochkin at oracle.com  Fri Oct 28 10:05:18 2011
From: Alexander.Potochkin at oracle.com (Alexander Potochkin)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:05:18 +0400
Subject: Project Proposal: JFX
In-Reply-To: <4EAA7812.7070807@oracle.com>
References: <0939F75A-0AB6-4338-AB6D-7D03201E4E01@oracle.com>	<CAFn-HvtrvffjeJcGj1RAb2m436Z0Nxr3V5hh=p90DbHTnzPv_Q@mail.gmail.com>	<0375821C-A7FC-45DC-85A5-C29B718DF1FF@oracle.com>	<4EAA6629.3020308@oracle.com>	<CACGw4H6w4ab8R-RR-LjSiZywAi1HPkdiAecx=9Kyyp6wZWAd8A@mail.gmail.com>	<82bot1pkgj.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
	<4EAA714C.9080102@oracle.com> <8239edpjcl.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
	<4EAA7812.7070807@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4EAA7E5E.6040903@oracle.com>

Hello Brian
> On 10/28/11 2:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> No we're making a Project proposal.  Thus the name of this thread.
>>> :-)
>> Oh.  Which group do you expect to act as a sponsor?  Swing?
>>
> As a former member of Sun's Swing Team, I would be honored if the 
> Swing group chose to sponsor us.  :-)
>
> Seriously, any group can sponsor this project.  Multiple groups may 
> even choose to do so.  The Swing group seems like a reasonable 
> choice.  Perhaps we could hear from them?

Yes!

As the Swing team lead I should say that we love the idea to sponsor 
this project,
please let me know what should I do to make it happen

Thanks
alexp

>
> Brian.