Sun Unilaterally Revokes the FreeBSD Java License

ravenII writes "The FreeBSD foundation has announced the news of Sun terminating the SCSL OEM-like license given to FreeBSD foundation. The foundation's attempts to contact Sun to renegotiate the license have gone unanswered. Javalobby.org also carries the news." It would seem that Sun has terminated all SCSL licenses across the board in preparation for the release of Java 5, and while the renegotiation process may be a bit bumpy, it's likely that Java will continue to be ported to FreeBSD.

Comments

I never understood

[miyako]

I never understood how it's good for Sun to prohibit the redistrobution of Java with BSD or Linux.
It seems to me that any benefits there might be would be lost because they are opening themselves up to having an open source, or at least more easily re-distributable JVM become the most common, and therefore standard, VM.
Besides, if they are giving it away for free anway, what benefit is there to forcing anyone who wants it to get it from Sun?

Re:I never understood

[swdunlop]

One of the last standing feature points for Solaris has over most other OS's is first tier support by Sun's JRE's -- it is Sun's best interest to confuse and cripple any efforts to make ports of the VM that make good use of the host operating system's strengths, to protect what is becoming the last good reason to use Solaris in the datacenter.

Sun's SCSL was originally a poorly considered defense against a licensee trying to pull the same embrace, pervert and promote strategy that Microsoft employed with their JVM, but it has become a way for Sun to try to make some money off its competitors with convoluted license issues.

Re:I never understood

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD is distributing it. They call it Java(tm). Anyone who uses the VM sees it called Java(tm) and knows that Java(tm) apps will run on it.

However, FreeBSD has not actually paid up to have the JVM branded as Java(tm). So Sun says, that's not branded Java, and if you keep saying it is, we will revoke your distribution license. And they did.

It's still dumb, because you can still get Java(tm) directly from Sun.

Though Java(tm) is available free, if you want to distribute it and you aren't Sun, you're going to have to pay to have a TCK (certification test) performed. That costs a lot of money that a volunteer project like FreeBSD probably isn't interested in fronting.

So no more Java(tm) for FreeBSD users, unless they go get it themselves from Sun.

Re:I never understood

[arivanov]

This means that you do not understand the meaning of java as far as Sun marketing strategy is concerned.

Java as far as Sun is concerned is a method of pushing a large number of customers onto Sun's native *sparc/Solaris platform and the associated software and support contract. The only reason for the existence of ports to other platforms is to bait people into switching.

• It is the only platform with first tier support and the only platform whose scheduler is continuously updated and optimised specifically to match the Java current threading model.
• Java is a big-endinan platform. All internal data representations must be big endian (this is in the standard) and execution on any small endian platform like x86 will always incur a performance penalty. This is similar to what MSFT is doing with .NET. It is specified as little endian for the exact same reason.
• And if performance fails to help the fledging sales (Sun is having a really bad quarter), licensing comes to the rescue.

Re:I never understood

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the FreeBSD Foundation actually paid the cash to get FreeBSD certified for Java. This means the jdk/jre package has to pass a series of tests. Then, and only then, you can distribute java and have your OS approved. The problem is that Sun has changed the licensing for Java5 and a new agreement hasn't yet been reached.

--
HawkinsOS, kick Smorgrav in the ass.

Re:I never understood

[dtfinch]

All external data representations must be big endian. For internal data, they just go with the endianness of the machine, and endian conversion is done when serializing/unserializing data.

Re:I never understood

[Sunspire]

One of the last standing feature points for Solaris has over most other OS's is first tier support by Sun's JRE's

Which is kind of funny considering the Solaris JRE is pretty much widely considered to be the worst version available. As anyone who has had the "pleasure" of working with said version will know, it has had a whole slew of issues and is to this day not on par with the Linux or Windows versions.

Better alternatives to Java

[Anonymous Coward]

There are now much better alternatives to Java for many programming tasks.

I've switched over to Ruby and my productivity has skyrocketed. Anyone who's done object-relational mapping using Java for example, should take a look at how Ruby does it using ActiveRecord.

I still use C++ for some programming tasks but find the need to do so less frequent each year. Thank God for smartpointers (boost library).

I might take a look at OCaml in the near future. Heard great things about it.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[davegaramond]

Actually I'm glad that Sun restricts JDK/JRE distributions. It allows other (and better!) languages to flourish in Linux/BSD environments. Perl, Python, Ruby... I'd hate to hack Java OSS (but I fear in the future we will be seeing more and more C# OSS).

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[bhurt]

And if you think Sun is bad, just wait until Microsoft starts playing with you.

My recommendation: learn Ocaml.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[boelthorn]

Take a look at Common Lisp (see: http://www.common-lisp.net/ or http://www.cliki.net/ or http://sbcl.sf.net/ ).

It is a language supporting every paradigm you'll ever need. And if not you can (portably!) code it. The hacker's language of choice.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

I used to program in LISP, but I find that Ruby takes alot less typing. Closures in LISP need macros so they don't look so complex & don't wear out one's fingers.

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

Anything more than the really simple lamdas always seemed to need macros. the short answer to macros is they're not needed; Ruby method coding really is a type of macro building. the long answer is to spend say four hours and learn some Ruby, it's fun!

Re:Better alternatives to Java

[iggymanz]

Won't argue: LISP is great, macros in LISP are Great & Powerful. Multiple inheritance? Ruby has something better called mixin methods, all the fun and usefulness of MI without being in the position of having to weld a fish to a bicycle. Could *i* implement a new Object System with MI in Ruby? If nothing else, Ruby is so very introspective one could take a list of classes and the methods from each that were of interest, and another list of proc (code with closure of environment state) objects that would modify or use each of those methods, and spit out a funky kind of dispatching class that could make objects of that funky class. and call that my MI thang.

Re:About the money.

[Tet]

Oh for a -1 Inarticulate Rambling modifier...

Story is wrong

[cperciva]

I'm not directly involved here, so I don't know all the details, but I talk to people from the FreeBSD Foundation on a regular basis. Hopefully they'll forgive me if I get some of the details wrong here.

Basically, the story can be summarized as follows:

1. Sun dropped the ball by mistake.
2. FreeBSD Foundation didn't know what was going on, and mentioned the problem in their newsletter.
3. People at Sun realized that they had dropped the ball.
4. Sun picked up the ball and put it through the goal posts (or whatever the right sports analogy is).

This whole story is really just a misunderstanding. Sun wasn't trying to be evil, they just made a mistake, and as soon as they realized that there was a problem they started doing all that they could to fix it.

The new license should be announced Real Soon Now.

A case of bad communication

[phkamp]

Justin Gibbs, The foundations founder and financial officer said yesterday that this was just a case of bad communication and that it was already resolved. Poul-Henning

Re:A case of bad communication

[Homology]

Justin Gibbs, The foundations founder and financial officer said yesterday that this was just a case of bad communication and that it was already resolved. Poul-Henning

But a very nice reminder of what SUN can do to those using Java.

Re:A case of bad communication

[SunFan]

But a very nice reminder of what SUN can do to those using Java.

So...what do you think about .NET?

Who is the rambling, raving lunatic now, uh?

[hummassa]

Disclaimer 1: I have READ the Fine Article.

What it is: Sun licenses the JVM to the FreeBSD community under the SCSL. Sun unilaterally has the right to revoke it. Sun DID revoke it, albeit in preparation to negotiate terms for new community license. Guys at FreeBSD do not know who to ask right now. E-mails from non-revenue-generating FreeBSD got unanswered.

What it really is: RMS is right. Anyone deploying Java apps under FreeBSD for a reason or another is now a hostage in this situation. Why? Because Sun *can* (and, depending on shareholders $$$ desire, *will*) pull the plug at any time. Why? Because the JVM and standard classes are NOT FREE SOFTWARE. Free Software is about freedom, not about price.

Oh, come on, everyone with prospects of starting their first Java projects, especially governments going the Free Software way, should DROP it and go to other platform.

Re:Ah, I understand now.

[Homology]

The SUN Java is NOT under a BSD like license! Of course, OpenBSD will never agree to the terms offered by SUN, so here you must manually fetch the relevant files from the SUN and agree to their obnoxius license. On OpenBSD the port tells you where to download the relevant files as part of installation : Java 1.4_2 Makefile

My guess is that FreeBSD has to something similar.

The duplicity of Java

[breakbeatninja]

Sun's Java, a programming language aimed for all platforms and operating systems, supposedly ubiquitous in any computing environment. So, let me ask, why would they, with that goal in mind, revoke *any* license for *any* operating system? They simply limit their potential users and the potential of their language as being widely adopted.

No need to attack me...

[hummassa]

A) I was reading at -1. The "this was a mistake and we cleared it up" post had not showed up when I started posting.

B) It is not relevant that the revoking was by mistake. Eventually, it can be done on purpose, too. And that is the problem.

C) No, they did not knew exactly who to ask, and at least when the FreeBSD foundation report was done they did not receive any answer. It's irrelevant for the discussion of this piece, IMHO, that they eventually cleared up the situation. Had the climate at Sun WRT FreeBSD been different, Sun could stall this and caused a lot of damage. And they still can, at any time, because Java is not Free Software.

D) I am not raving and nor is RMS, which is whom I was referring to. Java is not Free Software. If you are considering Free Software (as a lot of governments are doing nowadays with a lot of good reasons to do so... see http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html) you should not consider Java as a good option for software development (unless Kaffe [or other Free JVM] + GNUClassPath is good enough for you). And this was my conclusion in the end of my post.

E) As an aftertought, disclaimer, etc: I started to post my piece as soon as I saw the blurb (when I woke up this morning) and it had only 9 posts at -1. When I finally organized those three short paragraphs, and clicked Submit, it had 20+ posts, with some (3?) of those under the "A case of bad communication by phkamp (524380) (#11273654)" post. I took good 10-15 minutes to write this answer up, because I don't troll. I believe that RMS is right and that proprietary software is a legalized scam. And I really like J2EE (technically) as a platform but I really dislike the power that Sun exerts over it and the MS-like lock-in that it represents.

--
And this is not a sig.

Re:No need to attack me...

[i_r_sensitive]

People make excuses for those close to them or those things on which they depend.

Like perhaps their dearly held views that patents and copyrights are just legal scams?

So, copyright and patents are just legal scams perpetrated by the scammers, or the man, or whitey, or whatever to keep you down are they? So when the patent office opened all those years ago it was just to keep you down? Oh, sorry, I forgot about feeding your over-weaning paranoia...

No, in point of fact the raison d'etre for the patent office and the origins of patent law is quite the opposite. This is called history, and it is fact.

So you may abhor what that body of law has become, and you may abhor the gross abuses of the spirit of that body of law, but at least do yourself the courtesy to stop propogating lies to yourself. Arm yourself with some facts so that when dawn's battle arrives you at least are oriented in the the direction of the true enemy, and not flailing at his pawns and surrogates...

Now, copyright law, I agree is nothing but a scam, designed to keep the poor on the bottom and the rich on top. Copyright law is the reason we have no cure for cancer, it is a mechanism designed by the illuminati for the sole purpose of stiffling creativity, preventing the free flow of ideas and information. And you "know" you must be right because your prophet RMS made no use of copyright law when he drafted the GPL to protect F/OSS software...

There ought to be a new class of logic error for this. Fallacious Appeal to Misquoted Authority or something along those lines...

The point is, without copyright law, the GPL is just high grade toilet paper. Without patent law, Edison never has the means to realize the inventions of his later years.

It's called throwing the baby out with the bath water, and it is widely recognized as a sub-optimal choice. Perhaps if we can learn to seperate the abuse of process from the process, we can treat the abuse of process in a meaningful fashion. However, such a goal is nearly impossible to realize when otherwise rational, well-articulated folk refuse to identify the real issue, and consequently dilute and confuse the issue for the rest.

Netcraft confirms: BSD trolls are dead.

[AtariAmarok]

What? a BSD news item with only 1 out of 31 messages modded down? What is the world coming to?

There is absolutely no need to freak out...

[pmike_bauer]

The maner in which most people use Java on FreeBSD is not affected by this. Here is why

1. This only affects binary distributions.
2. The only binary distribution available is JDK 1.3
3. Most FreeBSD Java users (myself included) build JDK 1.4 from source.
4. Most FreeBSD Java users do not use the 1.3 binary distribution.

Re:that's why java should be gpl'd

[BoomerSooner]

Actually it's why Java should be ignored. You're just as safe using an MS product as you are a Sun product. Actually with Sun's bleek future I would say being a MS shop is significantly more secure. I love Tomcat but this is one more reason to be wary.

1/2 my companies applications run on Tomcat the other half run on IIS. They both are behind firewalls and are both very stable (you don't have to reboot for every windows update, just stop and restart the services the same way you do in Unix-based OSes).

I'm a big fan of the new .Net architecture and the VS.Net tools that now allow you to step through ASP.Net code and SQL Stored Procedures. I guess I'm one of the rare people who like almost every platform available to develop on. ASP/SQL Server & JSP/PostgreSQL are my favorites.

WTF?

[nurb432]

While its their product and their choice, the attitude they are expressing makes me want to NOT continue with Java ( or sun ) in any form.

Revoking existing licenses is just uncool. It also is bad business.

Some people need older versions of software.

The real problem, to me is that ...

[hummassa]

As I said in another post (#11167772), I believe every producer of what lawyers call "Intellectual Property" should be remunerated mainly by producing it and less by generating a lot of copies of it.

This is, mainly, what happens today to the real *producer*: programmers get salaries, journalists (who are the *real* writers in terms of quantity) get salaries... while Britney/Eminem gets a lot of $$$ for ... well ... being themselves, and Sony/EMI/*AA-affiliate gets the REAL $$$^$$$ for copying and distributing it. Do you get the difference?

ARM and MIPS endianness in game consoles

[tepples]

Please remember that practically every CPU architecture besides x86 is big-endian; Mac's, 99% of UNIX (AIX/HPUX/Solaris) machines, Z/OS machines, etc.

ARM7 and ARM9 can be set to big-endian or little-endian, but they're frozen to little-endian in every Nintendo Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS handheld video game system. The MIPS processor in Sony's PS1 and PS2 video game consoles is configured little-endian as well.

Microsoft and Mono

[jeif1k]

Microsoft doesn't have any control over Mono: Mono combines the ECMA core (which is clearly free and unencumbered) with standard FOSS libraries like Gnome and Gtk+.

So: using Java is not safe from a legal perspective because Sun owns Java, both the major implementations and the platform itself. On the other hand, using Mono is safe from a legal perspective (at least no less safe than any other free platform) because Microsoft clearly doesn't own it.