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
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
What concessions did the "other side" make?
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.
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
However, I don't trust him as far as I can kick him. He had proved to me that he will always overreact to every situation, and suggest solutions that he is incapable of executing himself.
You *can't* be serious! Stallman has been one of the most reliable people in the computer industry. You can *always* be sure which side of the argument he'll be on--even if it's not always your side.
Personally, while I hold software freedom (in the FSF sense) as a value, I don't hold it as the ultimate value. In that sense, I don't find myself, in practice, always siding with Stallman, but it's absurd to say you can't trust him.
Also notice how far along the QT replacement project has gotten. Interesting, isn't it?
Yes, fascinating, it prompted Trolltech to release QT under the GPL. One 100% free QT. Total success.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
Blah, if OpenOffice were to actually use GCJ there would have been no argument in the first place. The problem is they want to use third party code that has been written for Sun Java not GCJ. It's surprising, it really is. When people write stuff for Mono they don't go looking for code that someone has written for .Net and expect it to work out of the box. But when people write stuff for GCJ they always expect stuff written for Sun Java to work out of the box.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
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.
(d) you do not distribute additional software intended- ne tbean-4_0-cobundle-license.txt
to replace any
component(s) of the Software,
From:http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/j2sdk-1_5_0
Seems to me this imparts Sun the right to stop any Linux or BSD distro from distributing any other non-Sun Java project.
How does that sound to you? Restrictive?
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
You *do* want OOo 2.0 -- it is dramatically better than 1.x in many, many ways that don't require java. I recommend trying the packages in the "fedora development" RPMs (what will become FC4). They are very usable today. Some things you'll notice immediately are dramatically improved startup time, better file format support, overall higher polish, filled-in feature gaps. The pieces you'll miss by not having Java are covered in other posts. Briefly: wizards, and the new database frontend (Access clone). You probably don't need them.
Anyone can produce a JVM. There are several good FOSS ones out there now, as well as AOT compilers with GCJ nearly fully complete. There are NO legal impediments to ANYONE producing their own JVM and there is NO Sun-only bits in OOo.
Quit spreading FUD.
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.