Slashdot Mirror


Sun To Choose GPL For Open-Sourcing Java

An anonymous reader writes, "Sun is about to announce its plans for open-sourcing Java SE and ME, according to CRN — and they're going to use the GPL, not their own CDDL or another less-restrictive license."

11 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. GPL2 or 3? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Next fight: which version?

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  2. Re:Are they trying to limit forks? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Java needs a branch that has the cruft removed, both from the VM and from the class library. A new class library is needed, taking full advantage of generics and the other Java 1.5 features. The VM needs some major upgrades, notably in the area of garbage collection, memory usage reductions, and speed improvements. The backwards compatibility requirements currently forced on Sun seem to have prevented this from happening.

    Amazing you guys say this now. Yesterday someone would have argued java is clean and fast and nothing could beat it. Now that, of course, it's happening, you're all for cleaning it up and admitting it's downsides.

    Sort of reminds me of Apple's switch to intel. For years powerpc was the best processor for the mac. The g5 was a super computer. The day they switched? Oh the yohan is going to be so powerful! I can't wait for the dual core!

  3. This will be super cool. by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Imagine Java not as a plugin, but as part of your browser.

    Better; part of your browser that _cannot_ be integrated into non-GPL browsers. They still have to run it as a plugin.

    This has mind-boggling implications in terms of patents that apply only to browser plugins (ahem---Eolas).

    I've always wished for a Firefox with Java + Flash integrated (does that even make sense?). I don't feel that plugins give as good of an experience as native browser controls.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  4. GNU by treak007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This means that Java would be able to be included in linux distos by default, rather then requiring the user to set them up.

    --
    Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
  5. Re:Too bad it's too late by pembo13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, just to speak to the otherside - I hate C#, and I think its more than the fact that I typically have to be on a Windows machine to code it. I very much dislike some of the design choices made - my point being that C# is one of those subjective things (IT didn't help that every tiem I go to the C# irc channel I get yelled at)

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  6. Did you actually read the article? by americanincanada · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The fifth paragraph reads, "Santa Clara, Calif.-based Sun declined to comment on its open-source Java plans and licensing choice" That doesn't sound like a definitive answer to me. The ONLY thing that is actually said is, "...using a GPL license is very much *on* the table..." (q.v. http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/busy_week1 ). This does *not* commit sun to *anything*.

  7. Re:Too bad it's too late by compupc1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Traditionally Java has been better for web applications, and the Microsoft products for desktop apps. But that's changing, in no small part due to the Rich Client Platform from the Eclipse foundation -- a desktop application framework which puts Java in the arena in a way it never previously was. And on the Microsoft side, .NET (especially the more recent versions) have greatly improved Microsoft customers' position for web-based apps. Really, you'll probably see either environment in smaller shops, or a mixed environment for larger organizations.

    --
    -James
  8. Re:GPL'ing Java will kill it by ldspartan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How do the linking restrictions of the GPL apply to Java bytecode that isn't (by default, without a custom classloader, 99%+ of the time... etc.) traditionally linked as we think of it in C/C++ (and most other languages)?

    For those of you not familiar with it, Java goes hunting for all code at runtime based on the fully qualified (package + class) class name, and resolves methods and fields based on name as well... the code that gets executed at runtime can be completely different than the code compiled against, so long as the method signatures match. That's the crappy, its 11pm and I'm watching the daily show version.

    So if I distribute my non-GPL binaries, and GPL'd libraries seperately, am I in violation? What if I use Java WebStart and the user's client downloads the GPL'd libraries from their distribution site? And if I just distribute my binaries and make the user hunt out the GPL'd libraries on their own?

    I'm honestly curious.

    --
    Phil

  9. Re:Yesssssss........ by L7_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but then again, you will have all C# code running on a new VM within a year... when Parrot and Java share a GPL'ed VM, developers can write platform agnostic code in Perl, Java or C#; who will need .NET or Mono?

  10. Re:w00t! by caluml · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's better than wolfbagging. I'd never heard of it, and looked it up on Urban Dictionary - and wished I hadn't.

  11. Re:Forking is an essential right by MenTaLguY · · Score: 2, Interesting

    some prominent projects have only survived due to forks (GCC comes to mind)

    Inkscape (nee Sodipodi) is another one.

    --

    DNA just wants to be free...