Slashdot Mirror
FSF, OpenOffice.org Team Reach Agreement on Java
Bruce Byfield points out his NewsForge (part of OSTG) article about something good coming out of the conflict over Java in OpenOffice.org. It begins "A dispute between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and OpenOffice.org (OOo) over the increased use of Java in the upcoming version 2.0 release of OOo is over
-- at least for now. The two groups have found a short-term solution, and are working together on
ways to keep the dispute from happening again." The story provides a decent background on why it matters, and shows a surprisingly conciliatory attitude on both sides.
Will this always happen when a product reached the popular user base? I think there should be more work to integrating OSS project with Non OSS projects. Either making Non-OSS projects with OSS Prerequisite and vice versa. If OSS it is about freedom, why do they make it difficult for us to choose a non free development method? If you become to popular then you will be forced to use OSS tools except for what the developers think is the best tool for the job. We should be able to develop without the Free Software Organizations Pressuring us to make our legally developed products fit their idea on what is Free Software. If this is played out to the full extent then we are just as stuck as those who choose to use non-OSS products because we are forced to choose between what is available OSS. I believe in freedom as me as a developer to allowed to choose what tools I wish to use, and for other to assume that I have weighed the Pros and Cons of my choices. This type of stuff that happens is why commercial companies are weary of OSS.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
only official Java APIs are allowed to be used
This was already being done. There was a plugin interface that hooked into the AWT layer of the JVM, but that was something that was easily replacable by other VMs. Previous versions of OOo (probably from back when it was StarDivision property) used hidden APIs, but this was cleaned up in the 2.0 edition.
Java JRE interested parties provide the support code and take care
of QA, bugs etc.
This sounds like they're moving the plugin code out of OpenOffice and into the JVM. Technically, this is where it belongs, but it's always nice to be able to support the largest number of VMs possible.
OOo Java implementations must be encapsulated with well specified APIs
This is just good engineering design. If you can't produce readable JavaDocs from it, it isn't a good API.
OOo Java implementations must not check against Java versions or
vendors, with the only exception of workarounding bugs
Again, this is just common sense. Checking version numbers is a good way to nail yourself in the foot on future releases.
OOo Java implementations must not use swing, either because no free
swing implemetation is available or because it makes the user interface
inconsistent, this rule might be relativated in respect to 4
This is just common sense anyway. Using Swing would be detrimental to the GUI unless it was decided that the entire GUI framework would move at once. Such a decision would involve the entire OOo community.
the Java baseline is 1.3.1
This is the only concession I see being made. (1.4 & 1.5 have some *really* nice features.)
The amusing part about this is that the whole tirade against Java in OOo is nothing but a farce. A quick check of the 2.0 code finds almost nothing that violates these "concessions", and they amount to nothing more than diplomacy anyway. (i.e. The art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a big stick.)
The truth is that Sun has bent over backwards for the OSS community, and all they get for their troubles are painful stabs in the back. Yeah, Sun's got some loud mouths working for them. But their actions have ALWAYS been honorable. Despite all the nonsense about "contamination", has anyone EVER had Sun sue them? I've certainly never heard of a case! And when Sun realized that the language was confusing, they updated future source releases with new language that EXPLICITY gives developers rights to whatever they remember. So no more excuses! If you want an OS Java platform, code it. Sun sure as hell isn't standing in your way.
BTW, Mr. Stallman. How's Hurd coming along?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"Points out his Newsforge about a something good..." Is this a quote from Zero Wing?
Last I checked, there were a few Java "compilers" out there that could run a Java package. And the language IS open for anyone if they bought a 6-pack of Indians to recode it GPL.
;) . Best of both worlds to me.
Too bad they dont use something like TCL-TK or Ruby... but I kow why that is. There's a hell-uva lot of programs and libraries to use for free(as in gpl'ed).
Java's free (As in beer) and GPL'ed java programs are free (as in talking drunk
If you're a user, there's a link on http://www.java.com. If you're a developer, use the J2SE 5.0 links on http://java.sun.com.
It is not an easy thing to write a balanced and informing article about this issue, but Bruce Byfield suceeded in this and we all owe him our thanks for that. I think that there is a great deal of good will on both sides of this discussion and we should *all* try as hard as we can to built upon this good will. By calling each other names we can only all end up loosing. We need not always fully agree with each other, but we should try to accommodate each other as much as possible and try to stress that which we have in common.
This was also posted on the NF page.
ask him politly and then ram a flopyy where the sun dont shine..
/use the self extracting installer,Or use Blackdown or simmilar open source VM implementations if you a GNU hardliner
seriously though.
Its dependant on your distro , if you use an rpm based distro then go to the sun site and download the RPM
If you have a debian based distro then you could try with the self extracting installer or use blackdown which i belive is in many many repositorys.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Well why not, after the damage is done and they have made themselves look very very stupid.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
How dare you blaspheme the gnuldenYack, god of all you think.
/.
You shall surely burn in the pits of some Orwellian pit of doom for saying such things on
"Sun never made anyone use it's undocumented classes."
And nobody claimed they did. Your point was?
"I can't stand social retards like Stallman."
Obviously not everyone can be blessed with the kind of social skills you present to the world with you comments.
As far as I can see the FSF (Free Software Foundation) will destroy the exact same concept they created and many of us agreed to use.
By actions like this and past concerns on some other well known software projects, developers like me will not release their software under anything related to the GPL.
I think that somebody should stop FSF. Their work isn't to complaint, their work is to give us ("developers") a legal floor to walk. As developer, the last stuff I want to worry about is license problems. License I/we decided to use in a given moment for a given product.
I think that the FSF should stop to put their nouses where nobody wants. Otherwise proprietary licenses will start to become a common factor around us.
As opposed to the type of zealotry which some people say is killing Debian.
Exactly! This is why the BSD licenses are more "free" (free as in "freedom") than the GPL. This "I have a right to YOUR source code" nonsense goes past what "free" really means.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
I'm weary of these holier-than-thou sneers like "Sun is Gandhi-Jesus-Santa Claus and you're evil for not kissing up". Sun is working with open source because they think it will benefit their business, full stop.
It's frightening how alienated people get by democracy --the rough and tumble of free discussion-- and how attracted they are to moralizing on behalf of their pet prejudices.
What concessions did the "other side" make?
Bottom line: policy
"What we need is a way to distribute a version of OpenOffice that we can count on not to encourage people to use any non-free programs. If the developers of OpenOffice want to maintain their version with this policy, that would be ideal. Until recently I assumed that they did maintain it this way, but it appears they don't: with the current policies, any release of OpenOffice might depend on a non-free program merely because that was the fastest way to implement something. (...) We need a policy decision by the OO developers." (Stallman)
So, yeah, big mistake by OO.org developers. It remains to be seen if they even understand the point of this policy.
Because, remember, Java does not run everywhere and the JVM is proprietary, and you can't ship it freely.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Sorry Richard
Feedback wanted on how the different distributions are handling this, plus pacakge build instructions.
If you're an author and may ever work with third-party libraries, plug-ins or, in the future, web services, multiply license your work and make sure LGPL is in the list.
Most of my work has been GPL or BSD, but in retrospect I'd have better with a medium-severity license like the Lesser/Library GPL. Read RMS's article about why not to use the LGPL, and understand the trade-off you're making.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
How will businesses respond to this squabble over what to them will appear to be two kids pissing. If we want F/OSS to gain market share, credibiltiy, and even parity, we need to put such idoelogically pure trivialities aside. I understand the need for "free" software, but if you are a firm contemplating OO.org, and you see this, what are you going to think? They will not migrate if they think they're dealing with a bunch of children.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Where can I download the CVM?
"I can't stand social retards like Stallman."
He isn't a social retard, He is a communist engineer... something like the same anyway.
Is StarBasic not powerful enough to use for creating wizzards and dialogs? Is there more heavy lifting that really needs Java? Or is this a matter of more people know how to code in Java vs. StarBasic?
No, BSD licenses are not free. Public domain is truly free, BSD is not because it forces you to give credit.
"It's blatantly obvious when a programmer is using them from the "import sun.xyz.abc", so flame the programmer, not Sun."
and when the programmers are at sun using a sun language?
I said "more free", not "free-est thing evar!!11". Granted, truly free wouldn't involve a license of any sort.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
I'm shocked that Stallman allows GNU software to run on patented microprocessors and copyrighted, proprietary BIOS'es, without declaring jihad.
--
make install -not war
Many in the OSS community believe in soup-to-nuts software freedom, i.e. not only should the source to an app be open, but dependencies shouldn't exist on non-open software or libraries.
The proposal to use GCJ was a good one, and I think raising these issues benefits open source even though it exposes the frictions between the players in the movement.
1. Download the Java installer from www.java.com
2. Run the Java installer. (aka ???)
3. Profit!!!
The three step plan always works!
They're forking the code so it can be compiled with CGJ (GNU compiler for java).
Ta-da.
The reason this is so important is that if all the source is openly available, nobody can make it go away. It's essential to avoid "drug dealer marketing" - the first one is free, but then it's going to cost you. There have been too many products that started out "open", and then started to cost money once they had users locked in.
The typical progression for psuedo-free software is
Examples are Intellicad, Sendmail, and QNX
Nice article, until he makes it sound like having priciples is a bad thing. The issue with FSF is not one of "conscience" but of licenses that can/will be an impedient of free use of the software. This goes beyond conscience and ventures into the realm of property rights that typically can deny others of free use. That is why Stallman in the past warned of the issue of using Sun Java.
I think OOo need to look at FSF as representing customers that have a particular demand and accomodate that demand. All too often critics misuse the word "conscience" to disparage FSF community (customers) demands.
This is simple "marketing 101" -- listen to the demands of your customers
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Blackdown is open source? Really? Wow, I can't find a single link to the source on their website. And Kaffe is really not up to snuff for arbitrary code.
We've got a source-available proprietary 3rd party library in our code. It's a C++ program. No big deal.
It's just their equivelent of ./configure is written in Java. So, I've spent a big chunk of my time on the Linux on PowerPC port (to an RPM-based distribution, of course--Red Hat Enterprise Linux) in hunting down a JVM that is compatible with both the stupid configure program and the Linux distro in use.
So, even without being a GNU hardliner, the proprietary nature of Java is extremely frustrating--especially when the product you're working with doesn't even use Java once you get the damn thing built.
Personally, I was more than a bit disheartened when I first found out about how much of OOo 2.0 required Java. While Portable OpenOffice 1.1.4 worked quite well on machines without Sun's JRE installed, I was rather worried how Portable OpenOffice 2.0 would fare (just compiled a test alpha using the latest UPX beta, etc). If they split out a version that didn't require Java installed, I'd probably base Portable OpenOffice on that instead.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
5 steps?
This "I have a right to YOUR source code" nonsense goes past what "free" really means.
I suspect you don't understand what exactly is "free" in this situation.
The GPL makes sure the code stays free. Remember "information wants to be free"? The FSF doesn't care about the programmers, as long as the code remains free.
If you don't like it, don't use the GPL, don't contribute code to a GPL project, and for heaven's sake don't use the Linux kernel because you're too cheap to come up with an OS of your own or buy a ready-made one for your dvd player then whine when people bitch at you.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
A customer is one who buys goods or services. Does FSF buy anything? No, they expect things FREE!
If they don't like something, then they should go use Koffice, abiword, or some other office program.
Public domain is truly free, BSD is not because it forces you to give credit.
There are versions of the BSD licence that do not require one to give credit. Kind of an explicit public domain thing.
Ok. But BSD being "more" free is not really in dispute... at least I don't think it is. What's in dispute is whether or not BSD is a better licensing model than GPL. As someone who's published GPL licensed code, I don't really consider the BSD license that much. Mainly because it would irk me to no end if I bought a piece of software from someone else, and it turned out to have my code in it!
BSD is great (IMHO) for things like reference implementations (e.g. for TCP/IP). For things that you want implemented everywhere. But if you don't want your code ending up proprietary then it's not as good. GPL is better at keeping your code open.
Which is to say that there are advantages to each license, and it's not obvious to me that either is inherantly better than the other.
$.02
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Er um when you use BSD code aren't you saying "I have a right to YOUR source code"?
evil is as evil does
*Sigh*
Is Java Free Software? Nope. Not yet, it isn't.
*Cough*
Excuse me, but Java IS Free. That is, GCJ and the Classpath version. That is Java, and it's Free. It's hard to put it any more plainly, when the whole artcle was about making sure OOo used Free Java!!!
The Sun VM is not Free. But the Sun JVM is not Java. It's an instance of it.
I never even understood why this was such a big deal when the solution outlined in the story was the obvious way forward - make sure OOo works with GCJ. Problem solved and much easier that re-wrting HSQLDB in some other languge.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...is why I use AbiWord and Gnumeric.
I was persuaded blackdowns jvm was gnu , perhaps i picked up the wrong end of the stick somewhere.e .html?hl=com&cbn=0:J:0:: .
http://rpmseek.com/rpm-pl/j2se1.4-blackdown-sourc
there seems to be a source rpm for it
i cant see it on the site itself , perhaps i am confusing two things though
I appoligise for any disinformation if i was mistaken .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
It's interesting that OOo has become so influential that the FSF has decided to poke their noses into it. I for one think that making OOo's java code work with GCJ is a great idea and makes it easier on those of us who don't want to have to download Sun's VM. But I also find it a big disturbing that the FSF has the gall to make demands on projects they don't own.
...and KHTML. Would you rather that kind of relationship existed between Sun and OOo? So far, what Sun has value-added to OOo is minimal and has not affected the overall operation of OOo. You don't see Sun making impossible changes to OOo like Apple has with KHTML.
Is KHTML benefiting from Apple? Sure. Much? Not compared to what Apple is getting out of it. I thank God the situation is different here. While I understand Stallman's point, I just wish there was a little more respect or understanding for Sun's considerable efforts in what is a difficult time economically for them.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
This applies to all Linux programs minus the profit.
#3 should be more like, "Presto. It should work, but does it? Oh damn, not another dependency hell!"
This is the self protection of the GPL and LGPL. It's saying that since I allow you to benefit from my work, you agree to allow me to do the same with yours. It's called collaboration. I've seen a bunch of programs with the BSD licence get used by proprietary software without having anything ever contributed back.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
"Would you like to explain to me WHY THIS IS SUN'S PROBLEM? They have given everything away except for the actual rights to Java itself. If the GNU Foundation can't produce an Open JVM based on open specs and fully available source code, THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM."
Nobody claimed it was Sun's problem, so what's your point. The problem is OpenOffice using a technologie that is not free and it simply doesn't matter if the technologie not being free is Sun's, GNU's or Santa Claus' fault, it's still a problem.
"Come off this nonsense people. Sun is not losing money hand over fist (they're more or less breaking even right now), and they've made it perfectly possible for others to replicate their technology. Why is the OSS community blaming their failure to do so on Sun?"
Again, this isn't about blaming Sun and nobody is blaming Sun, so your whole rant is totally pointless.
This "I have a right to YOUR source code" nonsense goes past what "free" really means.
I'm sorry, but I have a big problem with this attitude. Someone writes something and shares it with anyone who cares to use it. All they ask is that if you modify the software and distribute your new version that you share your source code changes. If you don't like it, don't take the deal. But complaining that a GPLed software author didn't give you everything you want is going a bit far.
Arguing which license is "more free" is like arguing which ice cream chocolate or vanilla tastes better.
AccountKiller
I'd also like to see any posts that use the phrases "just works", "just don't get it" or "the debian way" automatically modded -5; -10 if they are capitalized a la "The Debian Way". Posts that preface Linux with "GNU/" should be modded "Tiresome, Even to Friends".
The best thing of all is if a really stable Free version of Java comes about, then there is no "Java Trap" anymore.
That really was the most efficient solution, and Stallman being the eminent software developer realized this when he had all the facts.
Really I feel it unfair to label Stallman a "zealot" when really it should be more like "informed and stubborn for the good of all".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
more "free"?
The question is "more free for whom".
The BSD licences allow anyone to use the code for any purpose, but that can include taking a free software project proprietary. The GPL guarantees that a project cannot be taken and turned into something proprietary.
RMS and the people who agree with him want to maximize the freedom of the end-user, even at the expense of the developer. The most extreme case of this is that RMS would like to require that all new software be released under GPL.[1] Very, very few people agree with this idea.
Note that the GPL has some cool points. IBM was willing to license some patents to Linux for free, because Linux is GPLed. IBM can allow Linux to use its technology but can still charge money to anyone who wants to use this technology in proprietary applications. There is no chance that IBM will ever release any patented technology under a BSD license, since IBM would no longer be able to charge any royalties on that technology.
Some coders hate the thought that their labour of love might be taken by someone else and turned proprietary. Those coders will prefer to release code under GPL. Other coders like the thought that anyone can do anything with their code, and they might even hate the thought of someone having to re-create similar code because of a licence incompatibility. Those coders will prefer a BSD-style license. Personally, I'm glad we all have this choice.
[1] Google for the whole "Freedom Zero" debate. ESR made a public challenge to RMS: if you could pass a law requring all software to be released under the GPL, would you? RMS declined to answer. It's pretty clear he would, since he rejects the idea that "he who writes the code chooses the licence" (RMS wrote that this idea isn't "Freedom Zero", it is "Power Play Zero" because the coder is exerting power over the poor, poor users). Here, I googled and found it for you: Freedom or Power?
ESR's challenge Freedom, Power, or Confusion?
BTW, Mr. Stallman. How's Hurd coming along?
Really, your post I thought was pretty good, but this last bit doesn't do the rest justice. Hurd doesn't have the mindshare to make the kind of rapid progress Linux does. What's that to you?
The bottom line here is that Stallman has an agenda. A political agenda. A political agenda based on his philosophical principles. What's wrong with that? And, in this case, he was able to draw some attention to, and to advance the aims of his political agenda. Which is what people with political agendas do.
Since, in the end, he didn't really do any harm to OO, and may even bring it some resources it needs (developers and testers), the final results are win-win, which is an uncommonly good outcome for a political dispute. Granted, a person with a more personable character might have got to the win-win scenario with considerably less heat and fuss, but unfortunately, my experience is that by in large the world effectively ignores those kinds of people unless they have the kind of credibility that only comes with having piles of money at their command. If things were different, then the world would probably be a better place.
Even good people rarely place principle as high as convenience. Incidents like the recent Linuxworld editor ultimatum over Ms. O'Gara's nastiness are, unfortunately, a rarity. For most of the rest of us, principles are really just a vague, far away abstraction, whereas convenience and profit are very clear and immediate. Right and wrong would never play a role in any decision we make, if it weren't for the fear of exposure.
So, we are stuck with gadflies, who vary widely in their admirability, but are universally unlikeable. Nobody enjoys being on the receiving end of a sting, which in every case is bound to seem overly harsh and unjustified. As unpleasant as they are to have around, gadflies play an important function. And if you don't like having them around, consider how fortunate you are not to be one. While I'm sure it has it's rewards, being driven against the current of the world must be a frustrating existence.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not forking. Being willing to accept an OpenOffice version that had Java in it at all.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
The FSF, at least, is run by grownups, and I have no reason to doubt that there are grownups in charge at OO.org.
Given that, why would we be surprised that they looked for a constructive way to settle their differences?
See what I've been reading.
When did Microsoft force programmers to use their proprietary extensions to Java? Yet Sun jumped on that. And rightfully so.
Red Hat has a number of people who are working full time on free Java, and they've done a lot of work on getting OpenOffice to work with the free implementations.
This was a concession?
They can Fork off to their heart's content. Put the result in the Debian tree and the result may build by the end of the decade. Beter yet, mix it in with the hurd and we can all declare victory and go home. (since it will be idologically and technically pure (and will NEVER ship))
The FSF threatened to hold its' breath 'till it turned blue unless those mean OO.org developers payed attention to THEM!!!
So the OO.org folks essentially said "let the baby have its bottle" and the threatened tantrum was headed off.
This is how open source works? Pathetic.
Lets just put a stop to the java zeolots right here and now...
If you cannot package and distribute the application
"with the JVM" it is not and never will be free.
I happen to like java, but I sure would never use it in something I was gonna distribute.
Got Code?
Which is nice... since Linux lets you know about the dependancy hell you're facing up front, unlike Windows that just kinda springs it on you down the line. Or haven't you heard of DLL Hell?
Of course, you could actually do some reading and learn that 1) "Linux" isn't RedHat and 2) even RedHat now comes with numerous package management methods that greatly limit the dependancy hell you're trying (badly) to troll about.
I think Sun was stupid to try this so soon. They're trying to push openoffice AND java at the same time. They should have spent more time making openoffice more of a competitor to Microsoft office in terms of features and not just on cost. When it's good enough where office junkies can switch to OOo, then require Java.
They should have created the dependency for Java through openoffice, not try to bundle the two together. It's like a car dealer trying to sell the undercoating package before he's sold you on the car.
The FSF was being irrational. There was a JVM licensed with an FSF license which wasn't compatible with the latest Java standards. Instead of advocating fixing the broken code, Stallman was apparently advocating not using anything which didnt work with the broken code, to the point of forking a major project to avoid fixing that broken code. That's hardly an example of good programming ethics. Fix the bugs, don't complain about others not working around them.
What concessions did the "other side" make?
RMS amended it to say that if GCJ could compile OO.o, then there's no problem.
The problem here is that OO.o doesn't see the problem. Despite historical evidence of the stupidity of basing development on a proprietary platform - whether its a version control system or a whole programming language - OO.o went ahead and chose to do it anyway.
After all, Sun would never break OO.o on Java just to improve Star Office's position in the marketplace, right?
When are open-sourced based CPUs going to be available? Does anyone know of any available? I don't *feel* free with the current processor offerings available.
Here you go. Check out the OpenRISC 1000 - I am guessing that it will be particularly interesting for you since the 1200 version has been used to demonstrate Linux. Of course the MIPS and Sparc clones can do so as well.
Transmeta was the closest, since Linus worked for them way back when.
Given that the native instruction set was top secret, I would say it was the least open source processor of all.
What concessions did the "other side" make?
;-)
To stop bitching quite as loudly for a little while
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
So what exactly is the business model of OOo then? What customers are paying them money?
If they(FSF) don't like it, they can also fork it and make their own version, and that is what RMS intended to do. And the good thing is you are just allowed to do that and put your money (or labor) where your mouth is.
It is a good thing that they seem to be able to work out the differences: OO.o gets some more publicity, the distro's avoid a messy OOo install (most cannot install Sun Java by default) and the FSF removes another version of the 'java trap'. I can only see winners there.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
There shouldn't be any dependancy hell on any OS.
Problems like this could be solved, but the Linux community refuses to.
Productivity is lost when fiddling with install problems.
OS X wins hands down as the best installation method provided for OSs and commercial.
I use the open office beta every day.
I don't have java installed.
All of the functionality that worked in 1.0+ works better in 2.0, and I don't use any of the additional features. Obviously, some people will want to use those features, but wow, aren't we always the ones yelling at MS for their stupid "wizards" and now we're mad cause we can't use the OOo ones? And isn't MS Access the bane of all db developers everywhere? And now we're upset cause we can't use our own half assed, not nearly as nice version of Access?
Seriously people I don't understand. OOo 2.0 is not "crippled" without java, it works just fine for 100% of the existing (ie 1.0) functionality, and all you're missing is some gay wizards, and a half baked db frontend that crashes all the time. I installed java for about 10 minutes to check out the java features, and then uninstalled it, cause well they sucked. I know this is only a beta release and I'm sure 2.0 will be better.. but it won't be anywhere close to usable, not for anything remotely real.
Active X and Clippy are the answer... duh! (EOM)
FSF should of tried to fork OOo. However, it would of been quite a challenge for them since FSF doesn't have the right people for the job. Even if they recruited, they would of been behind development, while everyone else is using the newest version OOo.
it's the only way to go.
in fact, you can't buy any in Fremont (in Seattle) if it isn't, and then you can open your office doors knowing you have good java.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The Free Crowd want everyone to write software so that they can freely copy and modify it and redistribute to their hearts delight. If they want to do this, it is fine. However, no one needs to be tied down to their desires simply to achive the aims of freeloaders. If they want a free Java let them buid their own and then distribute it in a way that will not get them into trouble in the courts and also work as well as the current free implementation of Java made available by Sun. Then they won't have to complain. Obviously, given all the complaining its clear they have time on their hands. If their implmentation isn't any better (non-existent?), then whats all the fuss about and who are they to be complaining about someone else's project?
./ .
I say leave ideological considerations to the brain dead, they are the ones who have time for it.
I can get a free Java anytime I want in the meantime and a free copy of OO to use as well. As far as I can see the consessions are merely to placate the ideological zealots, who are insisting on not only a free ride, but also ownership of the train. I don't think that would be a good idea, as it would only take M$ or IBM to instantly create their own "standard" Java and then fork the language, which would make its use on multiple platforms even more difficult than it already is.
The freeloaders have no intention of ensuring that their version of Java will be truely multiplatform, and with minimal support for such an enterprise, java developers can be assured that it won't be. They really don't care about that important aspect of Java, which to java programers can be quite important. How do I know they don't care? Just listen to how loud they are about raising money to support multiplatform java development. After such a fork, why should they expect Sun or anyone else to support the cost of ensuring the fork was multiplatform? For all I know, these folks may just be shills for M$ or IBM, who wants to use java to develop a support/contract business.
If Java is free as in free beer (AS IT IS NOW), its good enough for me. Actually, its better than free beer as anyone can download Java for free directly from Sun and refill their glass as often as necessary.
As for that hypothetical moment sometime down the road when its no longer free, well I was just freeloading myself, so why should I then have reason to complain? I can always move on, although I doubt I will ever have to.
Life doesn't end without "pure" FOSS/GLP even though it is an excellent match for the community at large. Besides, whose to say a pro-business republikan/Bush-packed Supreme Court won't soon rule that the GLP/FOSS is unconstitutional because it somehow unfairly restricts interstate commerce and unconstitutionally limits M$ right to unmitigated greed. I find that a greater concern than worrying about what Sun might do. FOR BUSINESS REASONS, they have already adopted free Java implementations.
Hence, would going the theologically pure FOSS/GLP route really be an improvement? I say its better to have multiple tracks going forward provides a measure of duplication useful as a failsafe. Besides, the track OO is on up to this point is working just fine (actually it seems even better than most FOSS/GLP projects, so just what (who?) is the problem?).
OO development is going on just fine (great actually) and these new vocal freeloaders aren't really adding anything to the mix. If they have problems with someone else's project, I say let them go out and build their own. If its better, maybe the community will use it. If not, then perhaps the OO community can get back to productive activity rather than wasting time on all the BS ideology lessons that keep being plastered all over
You should see the flames the Open Graphics Project (opengraphics.org) is getting for wanting to keep their hardware proprietary, despite the fact that they already provide an unprecedented level of documentation on how the hardware works.
Big difference. Microsoft was doing it as a "java killer" because they didn't want to run the risk of loosing market-share.
The language could have provided programs that people could use anywhere no matter whether it was on windows or not. Microsoft saw that this could hurt their market share. By making it only work on their platform with MS specific extensions, they saught to end the threat.
It's much the same thing that they did in the netscape vs ie battle with the exception that they lost the java war.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
One can only hope that once Stallman and the FSF crowd reach an agreement with OOo devs we will stop hearing about the supposed Java Trap.
Those that get their knickers in a knot over Java not being free would be better off working on projects like GCJ than flaming about those that are producing some of the best F/OSS projects out there.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Seems to me that you can distribute the JVM without difficulty from Sun. To quote:
The J2SE platform and the JRE are free to download and to use for commercial programming. They are also free to redistribute, if distributed with a value-add application or applet.
Seems to me that OpenOffice.org qualifies for that.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Don't see me as a troll, I'm a happy Mandriva LE 2005 KDE user, but I remember the Gnome vs. KDE wars (as in talked about on slashdot, I use linux since Mandrake 8.2). It seems KDE wanted to start early and get to business, so they chose QT from trolltech, but Gnome wanted to stand completely on its own so they developed GTK to build the rest on.
How much is KDE tied to proprietary software? I'm getting scared now...
Dependency hell? =>
I suspect you don't understand what exactly is "free" in this situation.
...and for heaven's sake don't use the Linux kernel because you're too cheap to come up with an OS of your own or buy a ready-made one for your dvd player then whine when people bitch at you.
I'm going by RMS's idea of "free", in that he believes that all information should be world-viewable, regardless of one's possible desire to not show everything to the world. It's Stallman that said "Down with security!" since he wants access to *everything*.
This tripe gets modded Insightful?
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Why do we even have to have Java be part of the equation when there are other *free* platform independent languages out there, such as python.
Sure, Java works fine, but why even ask for troubles like this by using it?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's not specifically forcing source code redistribution.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
... of course is that Stallman is an "idealist dickhead" who seems to be exhibit Nazi tendencies towards anything that he disagrees with...
s ) or it's evil" is fricking idiotic and doesn't take into account the basic realities of life... i.e. that we DON'T live in a star trek futuristic utopian where we all have enough to eat and the living is easy (apart from the borg of course), we have bills to pay and food to buy, most of us who produce OSS have regular jobs coding that do give us those pennies but we don't have the resources to "code-for-the-hell-of-it"... it would be nice but it's not the world we live in...
Let's face it, we PAY for almost every aspect of our lives, free (beer-free) is a nice-to-have but his mindless "it must be free (free-to-do-with-what-i-want-because-i-have-right
I think a healthy dose of "wake-up-and-smell-the-coffe-monkey-boy" is needed on this...
Is the society that forbidds its citizens to sell themselves into slavery more or less free than one that has no such restriction? More restrictions doesn't necessarily mean less free.
And who pray tell puts a gun to your head and forces you to use GPLed code?
evil is as evil does
You may recall that the OpenOffice developers were complaining that there is very little community involvement in their project. As such, it's obvious they're not making concessions in the interest of peace, they're making concessions in an effort to stay relevant.
How we know is more important than what we know.
For example, the BSD license allows a derived program to be distributed without source code while the GPL does not. Arguing that this means the BSD license is generally "more free" ignores one basic principle of freedom: Your freedom ends where it limits the freedom of others. So what is more free for the developer means potentially less freedom for the users and other developers.
while (!asleep()) sheep++
"This tripe gets modded Insightful?"
Do you consider that a valid alternative when you have no counter-argument?
Sun seems to have a clear strategy of trying to incorporate their proprietary version of Java into open source projects: Mozilla, OpenOffice, Gnome, Apache, etc. But a piece of software ceases to be free when it depends in an essential way on proprietary software.
Fortunately, open source developers are noticing this more and more and are starting to take countermeasures. Hopefully, in the long term, this will lead to unencumbered versions of Java becoming available and acceptable.
i've been using fedora quite a bit and it has Oo installed by default.
requiring a JVM would be s step backward, as i beleive that Fedora won't ship binaries with closed source or click-through EULAs.
Thus Oo would disappear from Fedora, and we'd have to install the Sun JVM first, then Oo.
I'm sure glad someone, in this case the FSF and Richard Stallman, are pushing to keep free software free. I hate it when things move backwards.
Seeing as this is all happening after the MS bailout of Sun, and the appearance of MS' Balmer shmoozing with Sun's McNealy is public, I'm sure I smell a big fat rat...one with the Sun logo tattooed on his hairy sack.
This whole issue seems totally unnecessary. Stallman's "Java Trap" is only relevant because FOSS implementations such as GCJ do not implement the full Java 5 standard. The solution to this would be update or make a FOSS version of Java that implements Java 5. It's not a trap if there is an obvious way out. If you don't want to go the obvious way out (because it takes too much effort), then the only thing that is trapping you is your attitude.
Also The Harmony project (if it is successful) would seem to lay to rest any FOSS advocate's qualms about Java.
I'm getting tired of this adversarial stance that /. readers in general have towards Java and Sun. Sun is not your enemy and Java is not a trojan horse. Sun have made their code available, several FOSS JVMs exist, the java spec is free.
Sure, it's a lot of work to make a good JVM, and I wish Apache all the best with creating a supurlative FOSS JVM, but the fact that Sun haven't done this on their own does not make Sun evil.
Do you consider that a valid alternative when you have no counter-argument?
Absolutely, given what I was replying to was not an argument but just plain idiocy.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Lets not forget that Stallman is against public domain code.
Public domain is about as free as possible, you can do absolutely anything with it, except please Stallman.
The GPL seems more restrictive than many closed source licenses (as many have pointed out) due to the obligations it creates.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Within the OOo Project, Sun Microsystems, which released the project's code in 2000 and still provides most of its developers, is regarded, with some exceptions, as a community benefactor. By contrast, free software advocates view Sun -- and, by extension, OpenOffice.org -- with suspicion, largely because Sun has a history of alternately supporting and damning free and open source software (FOSS). For instance, while CEO Scott McNealy has called Sun a "heavy contributor" to open source and claimed that Sun invented it, president Jonathan Schwartz has heavily criticized the GNU General Public Licence. Although this inconsistency could be interpreted as an effort to steer a middle path between proprietary and FOSS software, or as an internal difference of opinion at Sun, more often the community has seen it as evidence of duplicity and untrustworthiness.
I think this paragraph helps explain why some people are viewing this as a somewhat anti-Sun article or conversation. I definitely wouldn't say Sun has ever "damned" FOSS. Criticizing the GPL isn't damning FOSS. If you think that, you are someone who believes that the only FOSS is GPL software, and that is simply not true. Also, Schwartz didn't really rip into the GPL - I've read all his blog comments and his speech that generated all the excitement, and his point was simply that the GPL poses problems for some of his customers, and he felt the CDDL with its MPL model was a better fit for them and for Sun. What's wrong with that? He's not even really criticizing the GPL, he's just saying it's not the right FOSS license for his company's needs. When do we stop pretending that the GPL is the only FOSS license out there and that the FSF's agenda has to be embraced for a project to be beneficial to "the community?"
It's pretty ridiculous to see the article's author claim it's an "inconsistency" or "duplicity" to embrace FOSS but criticize the GPL, even if Schwartz had been really tearing the GPL a new one, which he totally wasn't.
Finally, as to the original issue, I agree that OOo should be written at least to public interfaces, and the debate should end there. If "the community" hasn't yet produced a viable FOSS implementation of Java, that is not Sun's fault, not Schwartz's fault, not McNealy's fault, and not OOo's fault.
P.S. The paranoid and cynical (certainly not me) could see this as a backhanded attempt to further pressure Sun to open Java entirely, and if you were especially paranoid (again, not me by any means), you could further note that this is exactly what IBM is dying for, and finally, wonder why Stallman's missives always seem pretty lined up with IBM's agenda and and why they (one of the biggest patent aggressors in the industry) always seem exempt from his diatribes.
RMS and the people who agree with him want to maximize the freedom of the end-user, even at the expense of the developer.
And as a developer I don't like this (it's a fallacy anyways, developers are users too). Then again RMS doesn't "work" for a living (he lives off grants, etc). Some of the rest of us don't like to be cornered by the "maximization" of the end users' freedom since some of us code for a living. The end user is free to choose or reject software based on the level of "freedom" they have. I actually have no problem with the GPL itself, just the mentality of some of its backers.
Though since this is Slashdot, and I've already been modded as Flamebait a few times for violating the groupthink I think I'll call it a night on this particular thread.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
You mean to tell me that these aren't a bunch of zealot extremists who would rather fight over it and go to jail than risk sounding like someone with a balanced opinion?
Bah humbug! If you're not a zealot extremist RMS worshipper, then you don't deserve to use a computer!!!
Just kidding.
Of course you know that he wrote emacs (it's not a clone of anything). Oh, and gcc.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
BSD is great (IMHO) for things like reference implementations (e.g. for TCP/IP). For things that you want implemented everywhere. But if you don't want your code ending up proprietary then it's not as good.
What's missing from your picture is the scenario where you want your code to become proprietary. For instance, if you work on a company whose proprietary extensions on top of your code gives the company an edge, where these extensions would only be relevant in that competitive scenario, and largely irrelevant in the general scenario.
Using the BSD license, you're able to share your code, keep your dayjob, and provide value to the company you work at.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Dude, issue here is, if you OWN the copyright to the code, IE it's your code, it doesn't matter HOW you license it, it's your perogative to relicense it however you feel like, so you could make a BSD version, a GPL version, and have a version that has whatever licensing the company you work for wants. As such, it doesn't matter if you licensed your code under the BSD or GPL, only if only people wanted to use your code without asking your permission first (that's really all the BSD/GPL do, is allow you to use code without having to go ask the original author for permission directly, they state through the use of an open source license that you have X rights, in return for Y rules.
I completely agree. I read the story and thought, "why the hell do they care?" The FSF can take a leap if they don't like the use of Java in Oo.org. Considering the amount of GPL software written completely in Java, I think it's fairly clear that they are playing off the popularity of Oo.org to get some publicity for themselves.
In contract, Microsoft actively encouraged the use of Microsoft-only language features (note: we aren't just talking utility classes here, but totally new syntax!), and in fact developers had to be especially careful to avoid using them unwittingly when using MS's development tools.
Yes I know that he means well and believes he is helping the cause but his extreme black and white mentality on the issue of OSS does just the opposite. I respect his contributions to the OSS movement and even agree that it's beneficial for someone to raise these various concerns. However, I think the OSS movement would benefit far more by having more pragmatic and moderate leaders while retaining individuals like Stallman as gadflys.
In particular I take the goal of open source software to be providing as much functionality and power as possible through open source software. That is the point of the GPL vs. liscenses like the BSD is to encourage future contributions of code by corporate and individual code. Sure some individual coders may have emotional reasons for not wanting their effort used by another for private gain but the point of these liscenses for the community is merely to promote future development and contribution by forcing later modifications to be released. In other words if we discovered that liscensing software under a BSD style liscense generated more contributions we should do that.
Thus insisting on idealogy can sometimes be detrimental. Consider insisting on a GPL style liscense when you had a trustworthy promise from IBM to donate many programmers to the project if it was liscensed in the BSD style. Supposing you knew that IBM (and other people) would simply write a proprietary competitor rather than be forced to open source a proprietary technology they wish to offer as an add on to the project. Sure the ideaology can be useful and in many cases a GPL liscense will result in more contributions but it is stupid to ignore the fact that this ideology is directed at a goal, more OSS and thus it is counterproductive to insist on this ideology when it discourages OSS.
Yet this is exactly what Stallman's vociferous black and white view of the world does. By effectively equating any company or product that does not live up to his idea of open source with proprietary software he diminishes any benefit these companies might have to contribute to the open source world. In fact choosing to contribute to OSS in certain ways can actually result in negative publicity since all the sudden Stallman is critisizing you for not going all the way and people start looking at you as an evil corporation.
As a result of this attitude companies like Sun get far less benefit out of open sourceing their software then they might otherwise. If instead of postive PR for releasing the code to open office (a very valuable free software tool I might add) they are instead ripped for not fully open sourceing their java compilers/specs and the benefits to sun of the open source programming community are drasticly reduced by a fork designed to avoid Sun's java they will be much less inclined to donate code in the future.
Sure it is perfectly withing Stallman's rights to fork an OSS project and for this particular project it might even result in more purely open source driven software. However, in the long term this sort of attitude actually harms the OSS movement by sending companies a message that it isn't worthwhile to open source some of their systems or fund the development of an open source framework they can augment with their proprietary technology. It's alot like the problem with enviornmentalists who critique cleaner power plants/companies for not doing enough or for otherwise not living up to the perfect enviornmental ideal while leaving old fashioned dirty coal plants alone because they either see no hope of change or lack of interest (a new cleaner power generation tech will attract interest that one of a 100 coal plants won't). As a result this good intentioned concern to make the planet as clean as possible can actually end up making it dirtier by reducing the incentive for companies to take partial steps in the right direction.
Finally let me remark that in this particular project we are not seeing an attempt by Sun to deviously lock open office into
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
it's a fallacy anyways, developers are users too
Ya, true, but not a useful observation. To the extent that you are a user, benefits to the users are benefits to you. To the extent that you are a developer, limits on the developers are limits on you. Both can apply at once.
I think you severely underestimate the amount of community ire about this. The fork wouldn't have had the immense level of support that Xorg got when they forked XFree86, but the support wouldn't have been trivial either. I bet they would've had the Java removed within a month or three, and I bet they'd have had replacement database functionality within 6-18 months.
The decision not to fork is a true concession.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I'm going by RMS's idea of "free", in that he believes that all information should be world-viewable, regardless of one's possible desire to not show everything to the world. It's Stallman that said "Down with security!" since he wants access to *everything*.
And? The only thing you get across here is that it's obvious that you're not a believer in the "many eyes" model of debugging.
Other than the fact that you don't believe in it, do you care to explain why you think this is tripe?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
AKAImBatman = SUN SHILL
Why is it that whenever you see Richard Stallman working out a compromise with some group regarding OSS, you always get the impression he'd have been happier if no compromise had been possible?
Almost a "Dammit, they suggested a reasonable compromise - I wanted to fight" feel to it.
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
just plain idiocy.
Looking through your history I can see that once upon a time you could actually form a good argument, "I think RMS is wrong, here's why, and this is a better way". Now it seems you've basically degenerated into the average troll, whining about "groupthink" when your post had little by the way of redeeming qualities about it in the first place. Call this post an "intervention", we're here to turn you back from the abyss of trolldom, one step farther never to return.
Take a look at your posts. Rather than making a reasoned argument you now just make up stuff, change definitions as it suits you (if you were indeed using RMS's definition as the great-whatever poster was trying to explain to you, then you wouldn't have said "goes past what "free" really means."). If you're so tired of arguing with common idiots, why don't you write some huge important piece of software like, say, a popular editor. Then, become famous and live off of grants while you publish books about the way you think things should be and attract a crowd of followers.
Oh, and forgot to mention, you don't HAVE to do any of that to make the views you expressed any more valid than they are now.
All it would do is earn you a "camp", which would be stocked with your own followers. Then instead of arguing with "idiots" yourself, you send your own sycophants into battle against the other meme's team. Megaweapon's Licensing Camp vs. the FSF Camp, with renowned leaders who lived the life they espouse and lead their memepools with books and lecture circuits.
If that's too much work for you, well, just one more step into the abyss... trolls don't need to worry about arguments and the like, they can just say whatever they feel like without making an effort to back it up.
You can relicense new code, AFAIK, but the code already released is not under the new license, because you've granted a third party that.
You can't retroactively remove a right that you voluntarely granted to a third party, and upon which said third party rightfully developed or derived work from or livelihood.
I believe it's a principle in Law, at least Roman Law (which I'm more acquainted with), called "acquired rights", or some such term.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
IBM can allow Linux to use its technology but can still charge money to anyone who wants to use this technology in proprietary applications.
:-)
Exactly. Ever wondered why more and more companies are dual-licensing their code? Because only the GPL allows room for that. The BSD license doesn't. This, in a funny way, in a paradoxical collateral effect of the GPL.
However, in a scenario where you want to extend and incorporate code from a community code base, the BSD license may be more interesting. This is a Real World scenario, for instance, you work for a company.
This gets the GPL camp worked up. However, the code base is there for the community, and the proprietary extension might apply only in a limited scenario.
So, it's all good.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Remember "information wants to be free"?
Yes, it's called anthropomorphism. But even if you believe that non-sentient objects have desires, the BSD license keeps your code free forever and ever. Only derivative works have the possibility of becoming "non-free".
Only derivative works have the possibility of becoming "non-free".
I could sell any BSD licensed product exactly as its written without making a single change, as long as I don't claim it was written by me. As a business model it would work pretty well, after all, all I'd have to do is find people unaware of the fact that they could have it for free elsewhere, and convince them that the software I'm selling is worth money. Could probably build and sell quite a lot of firewall appliances that way.
The FSF making concessions? Hah! You must be new to the Free Software Community.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
He says that the Sun JDK/JRE is not free. It's certainly free as in beer, to use Stallman's own words!
That said, having OOo work with multiple java implementations is a good idea. Nonportable code is always a pain in the long run.
Sun won't open their JDK -- but the JCP for Java 5 allows for open implementations. I know about Harmony, but IBM JDK is already done. Is there anything holding IBM back from opening their JDK?
I think Stallman and company have this entirely backwards. The OOo community should freely use 100% of the latest Java standards (just not any non-portable Java internals).
If any of this does not work in GCJ, then Stallman and company need to put up or shut up.
OOo should not hold off on using portions of standard Java (including the latest Java 5 features) just because GCJ is not up to the task. The onus should be on GCJ, not OOo in this regard.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
And you missed the point. If the company says "I want to base our new software of of this GPL'd program" they can't, right? Unless they release their own version under the GPL. Now if the person who wrote the code is employed by the company, the company can get a license to use the code in a proprietary piece of software w/o abiding by the restrictions in the GPL. That is all he was saying.
The sun.* packages. You know, the ones that are intended to be used only internally, and aren't well-documented. You can review Sun's policy towards them at http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/faq/faq-sun-packa ges.html
There are close to none these days. FSF is mainly a legal and political organization. Programming on GNU projects is done by volunteers, or contributed by other organizations.
Of course, you can be a volunteer programmer for FSF working on OO.o, but that is hardly different from being a volunteer programmer working on OO.o.
What you can do is to be a volunteer on OO.o and be aware of the need of the GNU project ( acompletely free system). Which I suspect is what RMS hoped for in the first place.
'He declined to answer, but I'm going to carry on with my post assuming he said yes'
Jeez.
Actually I heard RMS talk in Brussels only a few months ago. In my view, RMS would like to see ordinary off-the-shelf software to be released under the GPL. Things like games etc he said perhaps a 5-10 year copyright. Other forms of information/software should be given a copyright lifetime on a case-by-case basis.
Personally I think this is reasonable. Let all the RMS bashers destroy me (And there seem to be more and more of them here. I was reading a few weeks ago that one reason for this is that more and more ms windows users were reading slashdot now).
The concessions on the free software side seem to be not forking OOo.
I am trolling
Female Prison Rape in NY
Mainly because it would irk me to no end if I bought a piece of software from someone else, and it turned out to have my code in it!
I really don't understand this argument. If someone uses free code in proprietary software, that software costs less to build and is better tested. So if anything, you pay less for better software. Personally I would be more frustrated if the software I bought was buggy and overly expensive because they were reinventing the wheel.
So what? The orginal code would still be available to everyone.
I guess people are talking about two different scenarios here. In one scenario, the whole of the code is developed by you. In the other, code base has been developed by others than the original writer.
Huh? A version of OpenOffice that will not compile and run with properly with GCJ is completely useless to someone who wants to avoid proprietary software like the Sun JRE. This is also the case for people who want to run NetBSD or Linux PPC where the Sun JRE is not available. You may not be one of these people but pretending that their concerns are unimportant is impolite -- much more so than any "threat" of forking.
Unless the OpenOffice developers are prepared to cooperate with this portion of the community (and fortunately it seems they are) forking is the only alternative to abandoning OpenOffice entirely and recommending alternative projects. Blaming the negative consequences from such a move to the OpenOffice project on people who are just trying to get work done without compromising their principles or buying new hardware is boneheaded.
Not all those who wander are lost.
Declaring the FSF irrational is easy to do when you don't consider the facts on the ground. The problem is not programming ethics or bugs in the copyleft Java implementation. The problem is that the copyleft Java implementation is not yet finished. People have been working on completing GCJ for quite some time. While the progress they have made so far is impressive this is not an easy task. Everyone would like to see it done sooner but people are working as quickly as they can.
Limiting OpenOffice to the large set of features GCJ already has available is a practical short term solution and would considerably widen the potential userbase. The OpenOffice developers understand this and have indicated that they are willing to move in this direction, which is not how one would expect them to respond to an irrational complaint.
Not all those who wander are lost.
Why I'd be annoyed by this is that I think I should get my own code for free, not a discount! Ideally, I'd like it to be a fair exchange. They got a copy of my code for free so they should give me a copy of their code for free. But I'll settle for getting a copy of their binary for free. What is completely unacceptable to me is that they get to use my work, without paying me, but they don't offer me the same consideration (using their code without paying them). So I use the GPL to prevent that.
If this kind of thing doesn't bother you, don't let me stop you from using whatever license you prefer. But since it does bother me, I'm going to respond accordingly.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Because if, you know, Microsoft had called a up a developer and said, "If you don't stop using Company X's technology, we're going to clone your application and start trying to elbow you out of the market with it", people would be screaming bloody murder.
Microsoft didn't keep its extensions in a nice little com.microsoft.* hierarchy like Sun does with its extensions. Microsoft added classes to the java.* and javax.* hierarchies, changed existing classes within those hierarchies, and even added new keywords to the underlying language. Sun's issue was never that Microsoft was adding stuff; the issue was that Microsoft was adding stuff in a way that made it very hard to tell if you were using a Microsoft only interface.
Obviously you are paying for the improvements they made. If those were not worth the costs of the software, you'd be using your own free software. Let's say that x is the price of your code, y the price of their code and $ the money you were willing to spend for the entire package. Obviously x + y = $. Since x = 0, this becomes 0 + y = $. More succinctly y = $. You are only paying for their improvements. QED.
Ideally, I'd like it to be a fair exchange.
So what you really care about is direct compensation. Fair enough. But please don't pretend that there is no compensation already. Giving away code that can be used freely by proprietary developers may have any of the following effects:
- Voluntary retributions out of conviction or guilt induced by using free software.
- Better quality (assuming the reused code is better than a new implementation).
- More commercial products. Since production costs are lower, more products can make a profit. This can result in more employment and also in more happy users (assuming that different variants optimize for different user groups).
- Lower price for the commercial software (if cost to produce is a factor in the price).
A good example is the various commercial versions of Apache. This doesn't hurt anyone that is content with the free version (most of us), but the commercial buyers do finance some additional development on the free version that everyone profits from. So you have 1, 2 and 3 and possibly also 4.No. My code is GPL. They can't use it unless they compensate me with their code. If I licensed my code under BSD, then you'd be correct. I gave them permission to use my code; I can't complain after the fact that they did. But (like I said) I release under GPL.
The "compensation" that you mention is insufficient to me. The price for my code is your code (or something else that we've negotiated). If you don't like my price, don't buy.And it doesn't matter that some compensation already exists. In exactly the same way that it doesn't matter to some guy selling his car if you show up with a crisp $100 bill and expect him to give you the car. You may think his price is too high and that you're giving him ample compensation, but it's his car and he gets to decide. You might even be right that $100 is a fair market price for the car. But again, it's his car, and he gets to decide.
Same thing for my code.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
After all, Sun would never break OO.o on Java just to improve Star Office's position in the marketplace, right?
Right.
How the fuck do you imagine Sun could possibly break OO.o on Java without also breaking loads of other Java apps and, you know, kind of like damaging Java's position in the marketplace? When your entire company is bet on a platform, the one thing you do not do is change it to break applications that run on it. That's called "shooting yourself in the foot", and is not generally considered a smart move.
You will note, for example, that OpenOffice.org, Firefox, etc., all continue to run on Windows. For some incomprehensible reason Microsoft have neglected to "break" any of the applications that are beginning to threaten their monopoly. Why? To put it bluntly - because they can't. If they could, do you think they wouldn't have snuck some nasty bit of code into WinXP SP2 that made Firefox crash a little more frequently?
Incidentally, if you believe Sun are Pure Evil(tm) and will stop at nothing to damage OpenOffice.org's market share, would you be so kind as to explain to me why the fuck they would have open-sourced it in the first place?
For $DEITY's sake...
Mainly because it would irk me to no end if I bought a piece of software from someone else, and it turned out to have my code in it! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the GPL permits commercial use of GPL'd code, but the redistributor must provide your source as well. So is your real objection that you don't want people to integrate your code without providing it? Or is your real objection that you don't want people using your code for commercial purposes?