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/
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 ?
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.
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
And that is why that license stinks.
It is "viral" in that if you get that code and
learn from it, you can not use it to improve
any open source software.
I would very much like to see how Sun has
implemented certain optimizations for Java and
bring those over to Mono (or to other open source
Java VMs, VMs in general, JIT engines, compilers
or scripting languages).
The problem is that the license explicitly
forbids the use of it for this purpose `direct
or indirect commecial (including strategic) gain
or advantage'.
Still falls short of usable for the free software/
open source community.
Miguel.
gcc is able compile self. Does java compile itself?
Yes it does
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Sun isn't ashamed to admit that Java is not open source, and likely won't be for the foreseeable future. In fact, they seem to get a little angry at the question pointing out that Sun has spent millions developing Java and now the community expects them to make it GPL or something. I'm not sure how keeping the development burden of Java internal to Sun really makes them money, though. Open sourcing would be the ultimate outsoursing... hundreds (or thousands) of developers all contributing to Java for free.
The biggest argument against this I heard is that Sun would have to halt new features of Java for 9-12mos and concentrate on getting the source ready to be released. I don't get this at all... just throw it in CVS and do it with the help of the open source community.
P.S. The Colorado Software Sumit is awesome!
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,
Another thing to remember is that IBM actually has written much of the j2se code. Who knows what the exact details of that license agreement are? I suspect that Sun (same goes for IBM) may not even have the full legal rights to unilaterally open source the j2se even if they decided they wanted to do it tomorrow.
Don't forget Java ME is a huge suscess on mobile phones etc.
.net for mobile?
Why those guys will make it opensource so some guys at Redmond will copy/paste it to be
Yes, they actually do such crap. They did it before.
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.
Miguel, you are wrong. The license says "You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the Technology, except when such use violates Sun's copyrights or patent rights." 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.
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))"
"...that used to be called Jalapeno that bootstrapped itself..."
Just to let people know, it's now called Jikes RVM and is still under active development. "RVM" is a Research Virtual Machine, which is like a standard VM, only researchers do weird, cutting-edge things to it (advanced garbage collection, advanced runtime optimisations). The idea is, one day, the standard JVM will pick up these changes.
Not related to the Jikes compiler.
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)