Slashdot Mirror


Open source Java?

Bruce writes "Newsforge is reporting that Java 2 Standard Edition, may soon be set free of Sun Microsystems' notoriously complicated licensing. A group of 12 Apache developers have put together a proposal called Harmony. The proposal appeared as a simple project call last Friday on an Apache incubator mailing list. It would make this new, built-from-the-ground-up version of Java available under the Apache 2.0 free software license. And it's causing quite a stir in the Java community, especially since respected Sun frontmen Tim Bray, Simon Phipps, and Graham Hamilton have given the project their blessing. As yet there has been no reaction from Dr. Java, James Gosling himself, who is in Brazil talking to developers. In a FAQ on the Apache site, Harmony project leader Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: 'We believe that there is broad community interest in coming together to create and use an open source, compatible implementation of J2SE 5, the latest version of the Java 2 Standard Edition specification. While the Java Community Process has allowed open source implementations of JSRs for a few years now, Java 5 is the first of the J2SE specs that we are able to do due to licensing reasons.'"

33 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. I was under the impression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That there was an open source java project already, BlackDown. I fail to see what the big deal is here really, and arn't the Java standards open anyways and anybody could just write up an open JVM/Compiler? I mean nothing is stopping anybody on /. (or in the world) from writing say their own C Compiler, or Lisp compiler, or their own Virtual machine software, once you know the hardware of the target system it shouldn't be complicated to get a "working" emulation/compiler. Now for performance you would probably be better off using an existing solution, but thats why we have Sun's Compiler.

    1. Re:I was under the impression... by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blackdown, Kaffe, GCJ, and quite a few similar "branches", all getting somewhere 60% down the way and stopping there. Somehow I don't quite believe the new project will get anywhere near "usable" as well.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:I was under the impression... by k98sven · · Score: 5, Informative

      Blackdown, Kaffe, GCJ, and quite a few similar "branches", all getting somewhere 60% down the way and stopping there. Somehow I don't quite believe the new project will get anywhere near "usable" as well.

      Ok, first Blackdown is 100%. It's not an open source VM. It's a port of Sun's.

      Kaffe and GCJ haven't stopped anywhere. Both are using the same class library (GNU Classpath).

      Does this look like 'stopping'?

    3. Re:I was under the impression... by drew · · Score: 4, Informative

      blackdown is a community project, but it is not open source, and never has been. blackdown is the original port of the sun jdk source code to linux (and *BSD?), and the source code and binaries are licenced under exactly the same terms as sun's jdk, (which, iirc, essentially *is* blackdown.) in short, binaries are not freely redistributable, and you are severely limited in what you can do with the source code.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  2. Dupes Ahoy! by jalefkowit · · Score: 5, Informative

    I liked this story better when it was posted a week ago.

    C'mon, "editors". This has to be getting embarrassing. Right?

    1. Re:Dupes Ahoy! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At least he hasnt deleted this one, my comment history has a number of comments in it that lead nowhere because Zonk deletes stories and comments. Talk about breaking the referential integrety of slashdot :(

  3. gcj and the new license wars by jgarzik · · Score: 4, Interesting
    gcj is getting pretty close. It sports a full virtual machine, and implements large swaths of awt and swing.

    Why start from scratch? It this simply because the Apache folks don't like the GPL?

    1. Re:gcj and the new license wars by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      GPL and Apache licenses aren't quite compatible.

      Since the GPL doesnt allow for distribution of code under any other license, then its not compatable with any other license. Other licenses are compatable with it, but its most certainly not a two way thing.

      Sometimes different ideologies foster competition, just as Firefox has forced MS to reopen development on IE 7, the GPL license forces people with more broader ideologies to create competitors to GPLed projects.
    2. Re:gcj and the new license wars by k98sven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why start from scratch? It this simply because the Apache folks don't like the GPL?

      Actually it hasn't been decided if they will start from scratch yet. They might adopt an existing VM. They might adopt the GNU Classpath class library.

      The discussions on checking up the inevitable licensing issues are already underway.

  4. Quite a stir? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this "quite a stir in the community" is wishfull thinking. The Java community at large doesn't care much about an open source Java. People want to or have to write code, not fighting holy OSS wars.

    This is a home-made a storm in a teacup. There is already an initiative to create a free Java: GNU GJC. And no one cares about it. The Apache people are just running some propaganda now, but it will be forgotten in a few weeks.

    1. Re:Quite a stir? by m50d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Java community at large consists of people who don't care about open source java precisely because there is no (good) open source java. There's a pretty huge sample bias there.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:Quite a stir? by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've been a professional Java developer for 5 years now, and I completely agree. I have never, not once thought "if only Java were open source!". (For comparison, I first started using Linux nearly 8 years ago)

      I have no desire or need to change or add features, I have no desire or need to run it on unsupported OSes, and I have no desire or need to distribute it to third parties. I have no desire or, as far as I can see, need for Java to be open sourced.

      Your mileage my vary, of course, but for myself, I see no value in it.

  5. Dupe, and why? by m50d · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why does this attempt get so much attention? There are plenty of existing attempts at getting a free java, why does apache feel the need to start a new one?

    --
    I am trolling
    1. Re:Dupe, and why? by mikaelhg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't just need a Open Source Java, we need a Open Source Java implementation fit for production use.

      To produce such a thing, we need a community of competent people committed to that goal. This is what other Open Source Java projects lack.

      To get such community going, one needs to communicate in a certain manner. This is what the Harmony people are now doing. The strenght of this project is, to me, that it has both excellent technical competence and competence in community management and in setting and achieving goals in a reliable manner.

      This attempt is getting so much attention because senior people who understand that there is more to life than mere technical details pay attention when people who have a track record in producing results, speak.

  6. Helping out current Java Open Source projects? by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bringing open source Java runtimes to fruition should be an important step for open source java projects that are currently held back from entering distributions and packages because of this requirement. Also the requirement of Sun Java to use Java 5 on Linux (this situation may have changed..) would be a good thing to challenge.

    Having such a fundamental and established organization like the Apache project behind the effort should really aid & help to posture this effort within the wider open-source community.

  7. Critical thinking... by PornMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, can you run GPLed Java software on the Sun JVM?

    Let's get real, folks. Critical thinking isn't that difficult.

    1. Re:Critical thinking... by malraid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do you mean I can also run non-GPLed programs in Linux !? wow.....

      --
      please excuse my apathy
  8. Interesting name "Harmony" by stevew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is interesting is that another project by this name got started during the QT is BAD days. Several developers started the "Harmony" project to replace the QT library with a GPL'd clone. Trolltech relicensing the library stopped this in it's tracks.

    Odd how history DOES repeat itself ;-)

    --
    Have you compiled your kernel today??
    1. Re:Interesting name "Harmony" by m50d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I assumed that was deliberate. Maybe a subtle hint to Sun that they could make things a lot easier for everyone by dual-licensing java under GPL?

      --
      I am trolling
  9. Not Embarassing by mfh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is not embarassing. It's news that is good enough to repeat.

    I can't wait for Java to be fully open source so I can gut it and re-release it how I would like to see it written. Can't wait.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  10. Zzzzzz. Wake me up by thammoud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when this topic dies down. As a Java developer for the past 7 years, can someone remind me as to how Java will benefit from being open source? Sun along with the JCP has done an incredible job in advancing the platform. Java is the number one development environment for business applications. Bar none.

    Why would someone encourage fragmentation and resource wasting ala KDE, Gnome and the gazzillions of Linux flavors is beyond me.

    Sun, keep up the great stwerdess of the Java platform.

    1. Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up by dmaxwell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sun won't even take reasonable steps to allow distros to pre-install Java. Yes, it is simple for me to install Java after the fact. It is a legal licensing pain to distros to offer well integrated Java installs. That is one problem.

      The other problem is that only platforms that are directly important to Sun or IBM get full featured Java environments. Java on PowerPC Linux is still substandard. IBM makes a JVM availiable but you have to jump through hoops even as an end user to get it and you still don't have a browser plugin. An Open Source Java would be available on just about all platforms with equal functionality.

    2. Re:Zzzzzz. Wake me up by MrDomino · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As a Java developer for the past 7 years, can someone remind me as to how Java will benefit from being open source?

      Ever tried running Java on *BSD? It works to some extent, but it isn't pretty. Having an open implementation could mean that Java and Java Server Pages would become more widely accepted in servers running open systems.

  11. Getting ridiculous by Exaton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Zonk, you are an embarassement, an icon of shame for this website.

    You've been around long enough now. Time to start quickly checking /. archives before accepting news submissions.

    I hope you're really, really ashamed of the multiple editorial failures you're responsible for. Time to step up and do something about it, man ! No need to follow bad examples !

    And I choose not to go AC to say that.

  12. IBM connection by wrmrxxx · · Score: 3, Informative

    What makes this slightly interesting is the IBM connection:

    Geir Magnusson Jr. is a lead in the proposed Har mony Project

    Geir Magnusson Jr. is from Gluecode, which IBM has acquired.

    If it weren't for that, I'd just say "yeah, whatever - it's just another JVM implementation."

  13. Re:I see a case of "redundancy" by damiangerous · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Tell me please: Why should I, as an end user, download and use Apache's Harmony instead of using SUN's "real" Java.

    Scenario 1: You as an end user wouldn't have to. It would be included with your operating system, which is not currently the case. If you have to seek one out you would probably seek out Sun's, but if your Linux distro came with Apache's you would just use it unless it was unsuitable in some way.

    Scenario 2: You develop Java apps. Right now you have to direct end users to another website (Sun's) and follow instructions found there to download and install Java. You could instead offer an install package that already includes Harmony.

    Scenario 3: You want to use Java on an unsupported machine. Right now you don't really have many options for running Java apps on PocketPCs, for example (Like my Jornada 568). An Open Source JVM would almost certainly be ported a wide variety of platforms (considering how many platforms have reimplementations like Waba attempted for them the demand is obviously there).

  14. Re:Possibly poor foresight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The GPL is incompatible with the Apache licence, not visa-versa. And there's much more Java code under the Apache licence than under the GPL.

  15. Re:"blessing" doesn't matter by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Something clearly makes it hard to re-implement Java

    I'd like to tender a vote for "It's sheer Brobdingnagian size". Individually, each individual function of an API is something you could probably assign a college student to do, but taken together, to re-implement something like Java (which, like "Perl" or "Python" and unlike old-style "C" or ECMAScript, also implies a fairly sizable standard library) is just damned hard.

    And as one lil' open source developer, I can't work up much excitement about re-implementing a language spec. (Full disclosure, I hate Java, but that statement is generally true; I can't think of any language I'd care to donate my time towards re-implementing.) I can't imagine this helps the developer pool. (Obviously this is not true of everyone, if you think I just claimed otherwise please learn to read what people say, not what you think they said. I'm just saying that I doubt this gets many people's blood pumping in a way that Yet Another Web Framework or YA MP3 Player seems to.)

  16. I don't get it... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful
    People wine at Sun "Open Java... Open Java... Open Java...".

    And when they finally look at doing so, all I see people saying are things like "We already have GJC, you fuckers... we don't need you anymore".

    I just don't get it.

  17. Re:"blessing" doesn't matter by Daniel+Ellard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Whatever the specific reasons, it's a failure of Java as a general-purpose, standard programming language.

    Utter nonsense. Let's count the number of distinct implementations of Perl, Tcl, Ruby, Visual Basic...

    Languages that are reimplemented frequently tend to be small, simple and appeal to language weenies (scheme, *ML) and/or there's money to be made.

    The specs for Java have always been completely open. Anyone can reimplement it. The only restriction is that you can't call it Java unless it meets the spec (and proving that it meets the spec is, quite understandably, nontrivial because Java is a large, complex language).

    If you like Java but want to change a few things, you're even free to do that, as long as you call it something else, like C#.

    --
    Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
  18. Java's biggest hole is in the embedded market. by btarval · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You may well be right for PCs and Servers. But frankly, the current licensing scheme of Sun's Java is really getting in the way in the embedded space.

    What typically happens is that some company has a neat idea for an embedded device. But they quickly find that the Java applications they want there won't fly because Java isn't supported on the hardware they were planning to use. They either have to fall back to a different CPU (which is usually more expensive), or pay a lot just to put Java on the CPU. Or go with C/C++ for their applications.

    x86 and PPC are simply not the entire embedded world. There are many other superb (and cheaper) solutions out there, in this space. And no, Java support is far from prevalent on MIPS processors, despite what MIPS might try to claim. I know, as I've been there.

    Please keep in mind that there are far more embedded CPUs around than there are PCs or Servers. So there is a clear need for Java, if it were available in this space. But it's not. gcc however, usually is, fortunately.

    If Java were indeed Open Sourced, it just might be as popular as gcc is in the embedded space. Until then, people in the embedded space have far more flexibility by going with C/C++ than with Java.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
  19. Re:Possibly poor foresight. by soulhuntre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The GPL is the license the market has picked.

    No, Apache is. Many many more companies run Linux as a free way to run Apache than use Apache only because the chose Linux.

    --
    --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
  20. Is anyone else reading a fork implication here? by shaitand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did anyone else read this as, "java gods declare sun evil, fork and establish new and open authority to replace them?"

    Something about the overall tone seemed to imply that they weren't just writing an implementation, but intended it to supercede Sun's closed implementation.

    Sounds good really.