Slashdot Mirror
J2SE 5.0 Source Code Bundles Now Available
madcowbrit writes "J2SE 5.0 Source code bundles are now available
with SCSL and the new and exciting Java
Research license!
Coders have been asking for Java J2SE source code
access under new terms. The new Java Research
license gives people more access and options to
work with the Java J2SE source code."
Now I can optimize it like I do Gentoo.
Can you compile a FULLY functional JRE (not just rt.jar) and javac? If not, then this is no better than the MS source code access program. Look, but don't touch or try to do anything with it. Judging by the "SCSL Binaries - needed to complete source build", I'm guessing no.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
What is the status of SCSL and JRL with other open source licenses e.g. BSD, GPL or more restrictive. any martix?
http://www.opensource.org/
If you use the code for "Research Use" means research, evaluation, or development for the purpose of advancing knowledge, teaching, learning, or customizing the Technology or Modifications for personal use. Research Use expressly excludes use or distribution for direct or indirect commercial (including strategic) gain or advantage then you have the right to [r]eproduce, create Modifications of, and use the Technology alone, or with Modifications. That's according to the license. If they required certain classes, that's another story, but according to the license, you could change that?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Has anyone been able to get this working with their Linux dist? I am using it under Ubuntu, and I am having a heck of a time. The JVM keeps spitting out these strange errors. I guess I could look more deeply at it, but I thought someone else may have gotten it to work.
The binaries are only fonts, sounds, and icons ... you DO get all the source code. I'm friggen impressed now!
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Yes, you can download the J2SE 5.0 source code. But once you do, you will be bound by Sun's source code license agreements. Some companies and open source projects interpret those license agreements in such a way that you will not be able to work on projects covering anything that overlaps with functionality in the Java distribution.
I'd recommend you read Sun's licenses carefully in their entirety and think about its implications carefully before you download the source code and look at it.
Furthermore, you should carefully think about what you are getting out of agreeing to the license and what Sun is getting out of it (I find Sun's licenses inequitable).
If you want to find out how Java-like compilers and runtimes are developed and built, there are truly open source systems you might look at that don't saddle you with the kinds of restrictions Sun wants to impose on you (and they are likely better systems to learn from anyway).
7. Does this license require a click-through acceptance of terms?
... useful to me.
Yes. For enforceability, Sun requires a click-through license.
This should tell you something - only a license that plans to restrict your rights in some unpleasant way requires a clickthrough. Seriously - I always get the willies from having to clickthrough to accept anything.
14. Can I share my modifications with other researchers?
Yes, provided that the other researchers have accepted the JRL.
Cool, even my patches are subject to the license. I knew some doozy was coming that was going to restrict my usual rights. Thus the clickthrough love.
8. When do I need to get a commercial license?
This research license is only for initial research and development projects. If you decide to use your project internally for a productive use, and/or distribute your product to others, you must sign a commercial agreement and meet the java compatibility requirements.
Uhhh... so let's see, I can use the Sun JRE free for any use. I can download the SCSL Java SDK source code, and while I can't redistribute it or do other Open Source style things with it, I can at least play with it and use it for internal things if I want (I think). But I can't even do that with the Java Research License, if it consists of 'productive use'? That sounds really
So now, how long before someone builds a working J2SE 5.0 on OS X before Apple releases it ?
gcc is able compile self. Does java compile itself?
I guess, it does not. What's the point after all? Running russian headstock or nested machines may be more funny than usefull with actual computer technologies. It may come a day where complexity involved in computing will require layering abstraction at machine level. Having distributed and nested machines would allow massive mutualization of computing power wihile smoothing technology decay and waste while mainting constant evolution.
Having the java source available to universites, students and research projects, may lead to grow new trends like this.
Léa Gris
I was recently looking at the java source code for its threading implementation. Unfortunately, the method that specifically maps Java thread priorities to native OS thread priorities is a JNI call. In the readme for J2SE is says that such native C code isn't being distributed. Has that changed, or is this nothing more than a new licence on the existing src bundle?
Check out my podcast: DreamStation.cc Video Game Show
we can now finally get a recent java for *BSD and more obscure linux platforms (linux/alpha, linux/ppc). I don't care about support, I just want to have it more or less working.
You can find Sun's license here. Sun admits that it isn't an open source license, they are just trying to argue that it is somehow better than open source.
Because Debian is forced to classify software into open source or not, Debian has had to look at this in some detail, and they concluded that it was not open source.
If it were OSI certified then this would be interesting and very useful - however it isn't.
I think Sun is a great company but it does irk me that they are dilly dallying on open sourcing the J2SE source code. I think it's some what inevitable that they will. Hopefully they will do it while it will allow OSS and Sun to make competitive advantage of it.
...that used to be called Jalapeno that bootstrapped itself with IIRC less than 200 lines of C, just to start the process. After that, everything to do with the JVM was java itself.
I am NaN
Listen, I'm not fully up to date about the arguments for why Java should be open source. If this isn't a GPL like license (is it?) then what good does it have being released? What are people expected to use this for? Will this mean Java is less secure? Are we going to start seeing java specific security issues? Why does anyone want the source code (besides the argument that if Sun went under a lot of applications would be out of support)?
Grease & Counterbalance
and they've already begun working on the next version of the source code bundle, tentatively titled:
J2SE 5.0 SCB V2.0 SDK 1.5.0
or for short, J5SV2S1.5
Please bother to read the article or at least follow the links in the headline. The licence you refer to is the SCSL. The article refers to a new licence, the JRL. I won't bother putting in the link because it is liseted above and anyone reading this can go and follow it as you should have done.
Be aware that sun now offers its Java source code under two licences, one of which was not ordained by the FSF an an open source licence (SCSL) and the other (JRL) which has yet to be judged (although I strongly suspect it will get on the FSF's list either).
I hate Java without uint and ulong.
Write a wrapper and stop whining.
Quoting Danese Cooper, Sun's open source diva:
h tml
.net, Microsoft, IBM, Bea, or whatever the scare-of-the-day is, that prevents Sun from licensing their code under an OSI certified license.
"IMHO (and IANAL) the JRL doesn't actually represent much of a change of terms from what the research and academic community could do under SCSL (there are some small changes around export), but it does clear away all the language in SCSL that is confusing, if you are only planning to engage in research."
from http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2003/06/24/jrl.
On a first look, there is not much difference between the JRL and the research provisions in the SCSL. The language got a bit clearer, and a few of the most hillarious provisions have been dropped.
Research projects like JikesRVM, ORP, OVM and others seem to prefer to use GNU Classpath, rather than have their hands tied by proprietary, non-permissive licenses. I'd expect more research projects to join into the GNU Classpath pool, which is free software, in the future.
It's definitely a step ahead for Sun. Good luck on the rest of the road to freedom without fear[1].
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] Fear of forking, incompatibility,
They take a long time to release the source code, and if it wasn't enough, they don't release the source code for the minor releases (like _01, _02...). At least they didn't for any major release before 5.0. Only time will tell.
I filed bugs against 1.5 beta and rc, but I'm still getting segfaults under heavy load on amd64, apparently related to an internal thread that runs when memory gets low.
For everyone complaining that the license isn't free, this is an example of why it's still a good thing.
The licence you refer to is the SCSL
I'm referring to both the JRL and the SCSL. The JRL is so obviously and explicitly not an open source license that it doesn't even deserve a comment (either from me or from Debian). But since you brought it up...
and the other (JRL) which has yet to be judged
Don't try to create the impression that there is any ambiguity. The JRL is not open source; it allows the code to be used only for "research purposes" and prohibits "commercial use".
Please bother to read the article or at least follow the links in the headline.
If you bothered to follow the links in the headline, you would know full well that the JRL is not an open source license. If you thought that was worth pointing out, you should have done so, rather than creating the false impression that the issue is anything but crystal clear.
You're totally right, that Miguel fellow should just try to come with his own VM implementation - hah, like that's going to happen! What a leech!
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
That's a good point actually -- the main argument for open systems being more secure is that many eyes can see the holes in the code but can then patch them. More evaluation & bugfixing == more secure code.
So, isn't a license like this one effectively getting the *worst* of both worlds? Anybody can go looking for security holes but, since nobody outside of Sun can really fix them, the only point in finding them would be if you wanted to exploit them...
It sounds like you were looking at the class library source code instead of the VM source code. It's all there; you just have to know where to look.
The SCSL is not the JRL, so your message is off-topic and misleading.
1. Sun is buddy with Microsoft
2. Microsoft have a code "leak" last year
3. People comment on waters being muddied regarding IP gained from looking at the source
4. Sun release the sourcecode to java 1.5
5. Waters will get muddied
6. Patent Lawyers profit!
They cannot stop you from learning from what you observe, nor can they stop you from exploiting that knowledge, even for commercial advantage.
All they can ultimately do is come down against you if you actually _copied_their_code_ into a resulting work. If they try to stop you from producing something that may happen to have cosmetic similarity to their own code merely by virtue of it performing the same function, they would have to try to claim a patent over the portions of the code being copied first, which isn't the case here.
Oh... and they can also stop you from using the Java trademark.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Please explain me this. Another day, a customer ask us if we cover the mysql license. Isn't it free if you don't modify it whatsoever? It says you can only use it for free if it's GPL or something similar, but not commercial. I really don't get this. Please tell me what's going on.
Stay very well clear of it:
"agreeing to this license (e.g. by downloading source covered by the SCSL) will make it impossible for you to contribute to free software clean-room implementations."
I'm certanly not going to touch it, the pre-compiled stuff will do fine.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
I realize that the parent is a joke, but can someone give me a little explanation as to the version naming of java. Why do they call it j2se 5 when it is java v1.5? I have only done a little dabbling in java so this confuses me a lot.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
I have yet to see a valid argument for why SUN doesnt release J2SE under an OSI complient licence.
The argument that they want to be able to use the code in their own closed things, well they can do what OpenOffice.Org does and dual licence.
There are clearly no arguments that can be made about "other peoples code", if there was anyone elses code in there, we wouldnt get to see it at all.
As for the oft-pushed argument about forking, I said it before and I will say it again.
What they need to do is to release the source code.
Plus a testsuite.
If you want to use the JAVA name on your particular binaries, those binaries must pass the testsuite.
Releasing under a string copyleft like GPL that requires all source changes to be made public would also help stop forking because anything that is used can be added to the official sun tree.
That way, anyone can use the source for whatever they like. But if you want to call something (be it modified from the SUN code or otherwise) JAVA, you have to pass the testsuite. That way, anything that has the JAVA logo on it (or whatever) is gauranteed not to be incompatible with SUNs VM.
A good cpoyleft licence would also prevent what happened with Microsoft from happening again (since any additions could be added to the SUN VM)
Where did you get the impression that Sun has any plans to open source Java?
Sun clearly stated that NONE of their customers wants an open source Java and at JavaONE they asked for a show of hands in the keynote. Very little response for open source.
Clearly you aren't a Sun customer.
Miguel, doesn't your mono project compete with Java? Is it Sun's responsibility to write mono for you too? Oy ..
hopefully with some popularity the license will be revised a little
All the torrents you could want.
but I feel that anyone that has taken the time to create software or whatever has the right to define the terms upon how it is used.
Yes, and users have a right to discuss and decide for themselves whether a particular piece of software comes with a license that is acceptable. That's not "whining", it's sensible if you don't want to get locked into something proprietary. And it's something that both FOSS users and commercial users have a responsibility to do.
So it's a bit of giving and a bit of taking.
No, it's a little giving by Sun and a lot of taking: Sun wants to establish Java as a pervasive proprietary standard, making both Linux and Windows irrelevant in the process. And they are doing it in a way in which other people are doing much of the hard work for them (JCP, JRL, etc.). Sun is worse than Microsoft: at least Microsoft pays for their own development.
k98sven's analysis is very relevant because the J2SE 5.0 code is available under both the SCSL and the JRL. He analyzed the SCSL. Instead of going around screaming "MOD DOWN" like one of those crazed Java zealots, why don't you do the equivalent analysis for JRL and post it?
In other words, you can read the code to learn how it works and use that knowledge. You just can't cut-and-paste Sun's code into another project.
That would be a reasonable license, but that is not what the JRL seems to say.
being fast is something to not be proud of in that situation
Anyone ?
Modding is a touch unfair - dude's being honest. It's not a reasonable expectation for Sun to open source Java under the GPL.