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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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