From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Wed Jul 6 14:08:16 2011 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:08:16 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 Build 147 is the first Release Candidate Message-ID: <20110706210816.E5F372DCC@eggemoggin.niobe.net> After an initial round of testing we've declared build 147 to be the first Release Candidate for JDK 7. If no new showstopper issues are reported, and if JSR 336 [1] and the component JSRs pass their Final Approval Ballots in the JCP, then this will be the GA build for release later this month per the schedule posted back in January [2]. - Mark [1] http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=336 [2] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/ From Ivan.Krylov at Oracle.COM Thu Jul 14 05:02:30 2011 From: Ivan.Krylov at Oracle.COM (Ivan Krylov) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:02:30 +0400 Subject: Unicode 6.0 or 6,1 Message-ID: <4E1EDAD6.9030002@Oracle.COM> Folks, I want to draw attention to the documentation error. As discussed at the "Meet the Experts: Q&A and Panel Discussion" @ JDK7 launch Unicode 6.1 is supported in JDK7. However the Features page http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/features/#f497 still says Unicode 6.0 and so does the API documentation http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/api//java/lang/Character.html Thanks, Ivan From Ivan.Krylov at Oracle.COM Thu Jul 14 05:02:40 2011 From: Ivan.Krylov at Oracle.COM (Ivan Krylov) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:02:40 +0400 Subject: Unicode 6.0 or 6.1 Message-ID: <4E1EDAE0.9000708@Oracle.COM> Folks, I want to draw attention to the documentation error. As discussed at the "Meet the Experts: Q&A and Panel Discussion" @ JDK7 launch Unicode 6.1 is supported in JDK7. However the Features page http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/features/#f497 still says Unicode 6.0 and so does the API documentation http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/api//java/lang/Character.html Thanks, Ivan From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com Thu Jul 14 05:42:52 2011 From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:42:52 +0100 Subject: Unicode 6.0 or 6,1 In-Reply-To: <4E1EDAD6.9030002@Oracle.COM> References: <4E1EDAD6.9030002@Oracle.COM> Message-ID: <4E1EE44C.60202@oracle.com> Ivan Krylov wrote: > Folks, > I want to draw attention to the documentation error. > As discussed at the "Meet the Experts: Q&A and Panel Discussion" @ > JDK7 launch Unicode 6.1 is supported in JDK7. > However the Features page > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/features/#f497 still says > Unicode 6.0 > and so does the API documentation > http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/api//java/lang/Character.html > > Thanks, > Ivan > The i18n folks would be the best to answer this but I'm pretty we're at 6.0.0. There was an update to 5.1 earlier in jdk7, a plan to update to 5.2, but then 6.0 came along. -Alan. From Ivan.Krylov at Oracle.COM Thu Jul 14 05:52:39 2011 From: Ivan.Krylov at Oracle.COM (Ivan Krylov) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:52:39 +0400 Subject: Unicode 6.0 or 6.1 In-Reply-To: <4E1EE44C.60202@oracle.com> References: <4E1EDAD6.9030002@Oracle.COM> <4E1EE44C.60202@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4E1EE697.4020100@Oracle.COM> Afaik, 6.1 is not a final standard (http://www.unicode.org/versions/enumeratedversions.html) yet but Alex and Mark said "6.1" on the 9th minute of the Panel Discussion video (http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/events/java7/index.html) therefore i'm asking for clarification. On 2011-07-14 16:42, Alan Bateman wrote: > Ivan Krylov wrote: >> Folks, >> I want to draw attention to the documentation error. >> As discussed at the "Meet the Experts: Q&A and Panel Discussion" @ JDK7 launch Unicode 6.1 is supported in JDK7. >> However the Features page http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/features/#f497 still says Unicode 6.0 >> and so does the API documentation http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/api//java/lang/Character.html >> >> Thanks, >> Ivan >> > The i18n folks would be the best to answer this but I'm pretty we're at 6.0.0. There was an update to 5.1 earlier in jdk7, a plan to update to 5.2, > but then 6.0 came along. > > -Alan. From jeannette.hung at oracle.com Thu Jul 14 07:26:38 2011 From: jeannette.hung at oracle.com (Jeannette Hung) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:26:38 -0700 Subject: Unicode 6.0 or 6.1 In-Reply-To: <4E1EE697.4020100@Oracle.COM> References: <4E1EDAD6.9030002@Oracle.COM> <4E1EE44C.60202@oracle.com> <4E1EE697.4020100@Oracle.COM> Message-ID: <2F281053-0FB2-4BC9-B981-20DFE170BF7A@oracle.com> Yes, that was an error. It's Unicode 6.0. jeannette On Jul 14, 2011, at 5:52 AM, Ivan Krylov wrote: > Afaik, 6.1 is not a final standard (http://www.unicode.org/versions/enumeratedversions.html) > yet but Alex and Mark said "6.1" on the 9th minute of the Panel Discussion video > (http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/events/java7/index.html) therefore i'm asking for clarification. > > On 2011-07-14 16:42, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Ivan Krylov wrote: >>> Folks, >>> I want to draw attention to the documentation error. >>> As discussed at the "Meet the Experts: Q&A and Panel Discussion" @ JDK7 launch Unicode 6.1 is supported in JDK7. >>> However the Features page http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/features/#f497 still says Unicode 6.0 >>> and so does the API documentation http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/api//java/lang/Character.html >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ivan >>> >> The i18n folks would be the best to answer this but I'm pretty we're at 6.0.0. There was an update to 5.1 earlier in jdk7, a plan to update to 5.2, but then 6.0 came along. >> >> -Alan. From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Thu Jul 14 07:59:46 2011 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:59:46 -0700 Subject: Unicode 6.0 or 6.1 In-Reply-To: ivan.krylov@oracle.com; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:52:39 +0400; <4E1EE697.4020100@Oracle.COM> Message-ID: <20110714145946.5D6301487@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2011/7/14 5:52 -0700, ivan.krylov at oracle.com: > Afaik, 6.1 is not a final standard > (http://www.unicode.org/versions/enumeratedversions.html) yet but Alex > and Mark said "6.1" on the 9th minute of the Panel Discussion video > (http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/events/java7/index.html) therefore > i'm asking for clarification. It seems that Mark was mistaken ... apologies for the confusion. - Mark From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Wed Jul 20 08:41:21 2011 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:41:21 -0700 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: mark.reinhold@oracle.com; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:33:49 PDT; <20110609143349.8DD242245@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <20110720154121.4416C1381@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2011/6/9 7:33 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com: > FYI, Oracle will be providing Reference Implementations for Java SE 7 > (JSR 336) under both the GPL (with the Classpath Exception) as well as > the traditional commercial BCL (Binary Code License). The RI binaries are now available: http://jdk7.java.net/java-se-7-ri - Mark From ahughes at redhat.com Wed Jul 20 14:07:11 2011 From: ahughes at redhat.com (Dr Andrew John Hughes) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <20110720154121.4416C1381@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110609143349.8DD242245@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <20110720154121.4416C1381@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <20110720210711.GL32327@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> On 08:41 Wed 20 Jul , mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > 2011/6/9 7:33 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com: > > FYI, Oracle will be providing Reference Implementations for Java SE 7 > > (JSR 336) under both the GPL (with the Classpath Exception) as well as > > the traditional commercial BCL (Binary Code License). > > The RI binaries are now available: http://jdk7.java.net/java-se-7-ri > I thought the release wasn't until the 28th? Congrats. on getting it done early! But aren't these kinda useless if they don't get security updates? Will there be any useful GPL binaries? > - Mark -- 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: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D 0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37 From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Wed Jul 20 15:07:59 2011 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:07:59 -0700 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: ahughes@redhat.com; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:07:11 BST; <20110720210711.GL32327@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> Message-ID: <20110720220759.1B9701A7E@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2011/7/20 14:07 -0700, ahughes at redhat.com: > On 08:41 Wed 20 Jul, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: >> The RI binaries are now available: http://jdk7.java.net/java-se-7-ri > > I thought the release wasn't until the 28th? Congrats. on getting it done early! Shipping the RI is part of finishing the JCP Final Release, which is a different thing from shipping a supported product. > But aren't these kinda useless if they don't get security updates? They're meant only for testing and reference use, primarily by implementors trying to get their implementations to pass the JCK. > Will there be any useful GPL binaries? Yes -- from Red Hat, Canonical, Debian, and other Linux distros as usual, I expect. - Mark From henri.gomez at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 23:40:23 2011 From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:40:23 +0200 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <20110720220759.1B9701A7E@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110720210711.GL32327@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> <20110720220759.1B9701A7E@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: > Shipping the RI is part of finishing the JCP Final Release, > which is a different thing from shipping a supported product. Question about OS/X. Is there any date about a RI for it ? BTW, up to date packages are still available from http://code.google.com/p/openjdk-osx-build/ of course :) From mark at klomp.org Thu Jul 21 02:17:49 2011 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:17:49 +0200 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <20110720220759.1B9701A7E@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110720220759.1B9701A7E@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <1311239869.4259.6.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 15:07 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > 2011/7/20 14:07 -0700, ahughes at redhat.com: > > On 08:41 Wed 20 Jul, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > >> The RI binaries are now available: http://jdk7.java.net/java-se-7-ri > > > > I thought the release wasn't until the 28th? Congrats. on getting it done early! > > Shipping the RI is part of finishing the JCP Final Release, > which is a different thing from shipping a supported product. > > > But aren't these kinda useless if they don't get security updates? > > They're meant only for testing and reference use, primarily > by implementors trying to get their implementations to pass > the JCK. > > > Will there be any useful GPL binaries? > > Yes -- from Red Hat, Canonical, Debian, and other Linux distros > as usual, I expect. What Mark in his humbleness forgets to mention is that Oracle itself is a GNU/Linux distro vendor these days. As mentioned prominently on http://openjdk.java.net/install/ So when they update their OracleLinux distro, which has been shipping GPLed binaries and source of course for OpenJDK6/Icedtea, then there will I suppose also be new GPLed JDK7 packages here: http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/ There is even some icedtea-web love there :) Cheers, Mark From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Thu Jul 21 08:32:01 2011 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:32:01 -0700 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: henri.gomez@gmail.com; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:40:23 +0200; Message-ID: <20110721153201.24F831485@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2011/7/20 23:40 -0700, henri.gomez at gmail.com: > Question about OS/X. > > Is there any date about a RI for it ? Short answer: No, not yet. Longer answer: We don't yet have a date for when a supported version of JDK 7 on Mac OS/X will be available. When it is available it won't be an official JCP-sanctioned Reference Implementation of Java SE 7, but then neither will any other product that implements the SE 7 specification, from Oracle or anyone else, be considered an RI. - Mark From henri.gomez at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 08:40:10 2011 From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:40:10 +0200 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <20110721153201.24F831485@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110721153201.24F831485@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: > Longer answer: We don't yet have a date for when a supported version of > JDK 7 on Mac OS/X will be available. ?When it is available it won't be an > official JCP-sanctioned Reference Implementation of Java SE 7, but then > neither will any other product that implements the SE 7 specification, > from Oracle or anyone else, be considered an RI. It won't be an official JCP-sanctioned Reference Implementation of Java SE 7 ? What does it means exactly (I may misunderstood since english is not my primary language). Thanks Mark From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Thu Jul 21 08:54:09 2011 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:54:09 -0700 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: henri.gomez@gmail.com; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:40:10 +0200; Message-ID: <20110721155409.E3AE31485@eggemoggin.niobe.net> > It won't be an official JCP-sanctioned Reference Implementation of Java SE 7 ? > > What does it means exactly (I may misunderstood since english is not > my primary language). A JSR in the JCP must provide a Specification, a Conformance Test Suite (CTS), and one or more Reference Implementations (RIs). The RIs serve to demonstrate that the Specification is implementable, and so of course they must pass the CTS. There are typically only a small number of RIs; in the case of Java SE 7, just for linux-x64 and windows-x86. There can be many distinct products that implement the Specification, potentially from lots of different vendors. Each such product must pass the CTS. That doesn't make them into RIs, however, nor is there really any need for them to be RIs. - Mark From henri.gomez at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 09:13:55 2011 From: henri.gomez at gmail.com (Henri Gomez) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:13:55 +0200 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <20110721155409.E3AE31485@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110721155409.E3AE31485@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: >> What does it means exactly (I may misunderstood since english is not >> my primary language). > > A JSR in the JCP must provide a Specification, a Conformance Test Suite > (CTS), and one or more Reference Implementations (RIs). ?The RIs serve > to demonstrate that the Specification is implementable, and so of course > they must pass the CTS. ?There are typically only a small number of RIs; > in the case of Java SE 7, just for linux-x64 and windows-x86. > > There can be many distinct products that implement the Specification, > potentially from lots of different vendors. ?Each such product must pass > the CTS. ?That doesn't make them into RIs, however, nor is there really > any need for them to be RIs. Ok, it's clearer now. Many thanks Mark From jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com Thu Jul 21 17:01:46 2011 From: jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com (Jonathan Gibbons) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:01:46 -0700 Subject: jtreg 4.1 b03 available Message-ID: <4E28BDEA.9090800@oracle.com> See: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jtreg/ For details, see: http://blogs.oracle.com/jjg/ -- Jon From ahughes at redhat.com Thu Jul 21 18:22:47 2011 From: ahughes at redhat.com (Dr Andrew John Hughes) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:22:47 +0100 Subject: jtreg 4.1 b03 available In-Reply-To: <4E28BDEA.9090800@oracle.com> References: <4E28BDEA.9090800@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20110722012247.GW32327@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> On 17:01 Thu 21 Jul , Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > See: > http://download.java.net/openjdk/jtreg/ > > For details, see: > http://blogs.oracle.com/jjg/ > > -- Jon Is there any chance of getting a proper source repository set up for jtreg rather than these sporadic bundles? (Tried to ask this on your blog, but commenting seems broken) -- 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: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D 0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37 From jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com Fri Jul 22 11:47:40 2011 From: jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com (Jonathan Gibbons) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:47:40 -0700 Subject: jtreg 4.1 b03 available In-Reply-To: <20110722012247.GW32327@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> References: <4E28BDEA.9090800@oracle.com> <20110722012247.GW32327@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> Message-ID: <4E29C5CC.6080703@oracle.com> On 07/21/2011 06:22 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: > On 17:01 Thu 21 Jul , Jonathan Gibbons wrote: >> See: >> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jtreg/ >> >> For details, see: >> http://blogs.oracle.com/jjg/ >> >> -- Jon > Is there any chance of getting a proper source repository set up for > jtreg rather than these sporadic bundles? > > (Tried to ask this on your blog, but commenting seems broken) I'll see. You're the first to ask. Previously, the rationale has been low priority because of the relative infrequency of updates. -- Jon From mark at klomp.org Mon Jul 25 08:41:28 2011 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:41:28 +0200 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <20110721155409.E3AE31485@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110721155409.E3AE31485@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <1311608488.3322.31.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 08:54 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > A JSR in the JCP must provide a Specification, a Conformance Test Suite > (CTS), and one or more Reference Implementations (RIs). The RIs serve > to demonstrate that the Specification is implementable, and so of course > they must pass the CTS. There are typically only a small number of RIs; > in the case of Java SE 7, just for linux-x64 and windows-x86. > > There can be many distinct products that implement the Specification, > potentially from lots of different vendors. Each such product must pass > the CTS. I assume by CTS you mean the TCK or JCK (too many acronyms meaning slightly the same thing) for JDK7. Wasn't that supposed to be available now for GPLed implementations under the OCTLA[*]? Or are you also going to release the JDK7 TCK under the GPL? Thanks, Mark [*] http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/moving_to_openjdk_as_the From Paul.Rank at oracle.com Mon Jul 25 08:53:24 2011 From: Paul.Rank at oracle.com (Paul Rank) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:53:24 -0700 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <1311608488.3322.31.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> References: <20110721155409.E3AE31485@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <1311608488.3322.31.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <4E2D9174.3080307@oracle.com> Hi Mark, We are working to make JCK 7 available under the OCTLA. We hope to have JCK 7 available for you soon. Thanks, Paul On 7/25/2011 8:41 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 08:54 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: >> A JSR in the JCP must provide a Specification, a Conformance Test Suite >> (CTS), and one or more Reference Implementations (RIs). The RIs serve >> to demonstrate that the Specification is implementable, and so of course >> they must pass the CTS. There are typically only a small number of RIs; >> in the case of Java SE 7, just for linux-x64 and windows-x86. >> >> There can be many distinct products that implement the Specification, >> potentially from lots of different vendors. Each such product must pass >> the CTS. > I assume by CTS you mean the TCK or JCK (too many acronyms meaning > slightly the same thing) for JDK7. Wasn't that supposed to be available > now for GPLed implementations under the OCTLA[*]? Or are you also going > to release the JDK7 TCK under the GPL? > > Thanks, > > Mark > > [*] http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/moving_to_openjdk_as_the From ahughes at redhat.com Mon Jul 25 17:00:54 2011 From: ahughes at redhat.com (Dr Andrew John Hughes) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:00:54 +0100 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <20110720220759.1B9701A7E@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110720210711.GL32327@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> <20110720220759.1B9701A7E@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <20110726000054.GJ17692@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> On 15:07 Wed 20 Jul , mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > 2011/7/20 14:07 -0700, ahughes at redhat.com: > > On 08:41 Wed 20 Jul, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > >> The RI binaries are now available: http://jdk7.java.net/java-se-7-ri > > > > I thought the release wasn't until the 28th? Congrats. on getting it done early! > > Shipping the RI is part of finishing the JCP Final Release, > which is a different thing from shipping a supported product. > > > But aren't these kinda useless if they don't get security updates? > > They're meant only for testing and reference use, primarily > by implementors trying to get their implementations to pass > the JCK. > > > Will there be any useful GPL binaries? > > Yes -- from Red Hat, Canonical, Debian, and other Linux distros > as usual, I expect. > So, in other words, nothing changed and Oracle's implementation will still be in proprietary binary form. > - Mark -- 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: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D 0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37 From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Mon Jul 25 21:11:26 2011 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:11:26 -0700 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: ahughes@redhat.com; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:00:54 BST; <20110726000054.GJ17692@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> Message-ID: <20110726041126.4AB941207@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2011/7/25 17:00 -0700, ahughes at redhat.com: > On 15:07 Wed 20 Jul 2011, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: >> Shipping the RI is part of finishing the JCP Final Release, >> which is a different thing from shipping a supported product. >> >> 2011/7/20 14:07 -0700, ahughes at redhat.com: >>> But aren't these kinda useless if they don't get security updates? >> >> They're meant only for testing and reference use, primarily >> by implementors trying to get their implementations to pass >> the JCK. >> >>> Will there be any useful GPL binaries? >> >> Yes -- from Red Hat, Canonical, Debian, and other Linux distros >> as usual, I expect. > > So, in other words, nothing changed and Oracle's implementation will > still be in proprietary binary form. Oracle's commercial product implementation is still proprietary, though most of it is based upon the OpenJDK JDK 7 code base. What's changed is that the Reference Implementations are based solely upon open-source code and binaries are available under the GPL, as explained here: http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/moving_to_openjdk_as_the - Mark From ahughes at redhat.com Tue Jul 26 05:44:27 2011 From: ahughes at redhat.com (Dr Andrew John Hughes) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:44:27 +0100 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <20110726041126.4AB941207@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20110726000054.GJ17692@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> <20110726041126.4AB941207@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <20110726124427.GC7976@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> On 21:11 Mon 25 Jul , mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > 2011/7/25 17:00 -0700, ahughes at redhat.com: > > On 15:07 Wed 20 Jul 2011, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > >> Shipping the RI is part of finishing the JCP Final Release, > >> which is a different thing from shipping a supported product. > >> > >> 2011/7/20 14:07 -0700, ahughes at redhat.com: > >>> But aren't these kinda useless if they don't get security updates? > >> > >> They're meant only for testing and reference use, primarily > >> by implementors trying to get their implementations to pass > >> the JCK. > >> > >>> Will there be any useful GPL binaries? > >> > >> Yes -- from Red Hat, Canonical, Debian, and other Linux distros > >> as usual, I expect. > > > > So, in other words, nothing changed and Oracle's implementation will > > still be in proprietary binary form. > > Oracle's commercial product implementation is still proprietary, though > most of it is based upon the OpenJDK JDK 7 code base. > > What's changed is that the Reference Implementations are based solely > upon open-source code and binaries are available under the GPL, as > explained here: > > http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/moving_to_openjdk_as_the > Yes. The issue here is I assumed these were one and the same thing and so you'd be producing GPL binaries of 7 throughout its life, not just some random binary snapshot that never changes. Oh well, guess I was too hopeful. > - Mark -- 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: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D 0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37 From dalibor.topic at oracle.com Tue Jul 26 06:59:26 2011 From: dalibor.topic at oracle.com (Dalibor Topic) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 06:59:26 -0700 Subject: Change in Java SE 7 Reference Implementation license In-Reply-To: <20110726124427.GC7976@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> References: <20110726000054.GJ17692@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> <20110726041126.4AB941207@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <20110726124427.GC7976@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> Message-ID: <4E2EC83E.5020009@oracle.com> On 7/26/11 5:44 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: > The issue here is I assumed these were one and the same thing Side note: I find the JCP glossary to be helpful in such cases: http://jcp.org/en/introduction/glossary cheers, dalibor topic -- Oracle Dalibor Topic | Java F/OSS Ambassador Phone: +494023646738 | Mobile: +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 Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment