Apache Resigns From the JCP Executive Committee

iammichael writes "The Apache Software Foundation has resigned its seat on the Java SE/EE Executive Committee due to a long dispute over the licensing restrictions placed on the TCK (test kit validating third-party Java implementations are compatible with the specification)."

Comments

Sad ...

[gstoddart]

Sad that it has to come to this ... I can't begin to say how useful the Apache libraries have been in past Java development. Why reinvent the wheel and plumbing when Apache is providing really awesome libraries for free that cover much of the "grunt work".

I fear Oracle is doing far more harm than good to Java.

Apache is out of the JCP only

[lehphyro]

We'll still get great java and other JVM based language libraries from Apache.

Re:Apache is out of the JCP only

[VGPowerlord]

Also, ticking off one of the largest organizations using, developing, supporting and popularizing Java applications, can't be good for the future of the platform.

Two... you forgot Google.

Actually, I wonder if Google will leave the JCP as well.

Re:TCK license

[robmv]

a good explanation at Stephen Colebourne's blog

Re:It has begun...barely

[gstoddart]

Maybe we should start taking bets on:

a) When Oracle starts requiring a per-core license for production JVMs, and
b) How many $$ per core that will be?

a) Real Soon Now
b) The square of the processor speed as expressed in Hz.

Background

[HRbnjR]

My understanding is this...

Long before Java was GPL'd through OpenJDK, Sun was trying to claim that it was an open standard, and published specifications for the JVM, etc - kinda how Microsoft does with .NET. The dirty secret was that they also held patents on the technology, so they could still sue you for implementing their spec. If you want access to the patent grant - you can have that too, for free even, provided your implementation of Java passes the compatibility kit (TCK) tests (which disallows sub-setting). Those tests are the problem though - they are decidedly NOT open source, and you can only get access to them if you follow Sun's rules, like not building a mobile device and a bunch of crap like that. Apache (with help from IBM) has implemented those "open" specs via the Harmony project, but all the TCK rules make them mad.

Separate from all that, Sun then went and GPL'd the whole thing as OpenJDK. You can do anything with OpenJDK that you can do with any other GPL code - an important thing to remember in all this. Rumor has it, the GPLv2 license may even grant you some implicit protection against any patents Sun has on the technology - at the very least they would have a hard time suing you for building something based on OpenJDK as long as you adhere to the GPL

Unfortunately, Android isn't based on OpenJDK, it's based on Harmony, so it doesn't have any protection from Sun/Oracle's patents on Java (which also may apply to many virtual machines for other languages), so they are getting sued.

Re:Background

[mysidia]

Oracle is not bound by the terms of the GPL since they hold there copyright to the entire source. So, I'm not sure why people think that theGPL gives then any patent protection from Oracle.

Because the GPL'd work was created/distributed by the patent holder. When you distribute a product that contains a patented element, you cannot sue your own customer that you distributed the item to.

When you give your customer your product, and as patent holder you give them a license (the GPL) that allows them to distribute it freely, modify, and redistribute freely, you do not enumerate which exclusive rights you are licensing. Because the GPL does not provide for listing the specific exclusive protections licensed, it only lists general rights granted by the licensor to the licensee.

There is nothing in the GPL which states that ONLY copyrights are licensed.

Some people might assume that the GPL only licenses exclusive rights provided by copyright law; however, there is nothing in the GPL that actually states which kinds of rights are licensed.

One could imply, that the GPL as an agreement confers all license required by the grantor to the grantee, in order for the grantee to be able to exercise the rights the grantor claims to grant.

For example, if you are a bank and rent out a deposit box, and your agreement with your customer states they will have keys for 24/7 access to their safety deposit box.

That implies you can't sue your customer for "trespass" because security found them in the entrance corridor to the room with their box at 10pm one night.

Re:Somebody should tell us what this really means

[Delirium Tremens]

It means that Oracle controls Java on embedded devices. Google can not take Harmony and have it run its Java apps in the next Android OS. Instead, Google has to say Pretty Please to Oracle first, and then buy the binary or source code license from them.

Re:Somebody should tell us what this really means

[mswhippingboy]

For Java, it means what has been speculated all along has now been confirmed, that Java is NOT an open standard and is in fact controlled by one company, Oracle. This was of course, the same situation while under the control of Sun, but Sun was a bit less "evil" in that they did not enforce the restrictions. Not surprisingly, Oracle is a different beast. It's too early to tell what the long term implications will be, but a lot has to do with the outcome of the Oracle/Google case.

This of course, brings us to Android. Depending on the outcome of the Oracle/Google legal maneuvering, Android could be killed off (or retooled to remove Harmony from the equation), or Oracle's restrictions and/or patents could be vacated. Most likely the result will be something in between, where Android lives on, but is subject to the indirect control of Oracle. Of course, the IDEAL situation (the one I'm rooting for) is that Google wins. This would, in effect free Java from Oracle's greedy control and allow Android to develop into the truly remarkable platform it has the potential to become.

(Disclaimer: IANAL nor a tech analyst and I have no particular insight, other than I tend to follow this story, so my views are my own as a simple small time developer).

Re:Tomcat?

[gstoddart]

Is there a chance they'd try to monetize the J2EE/JEE container market (hey, they're holding the still-warm corpse of BEA) by being deliberately opaque with their JEE specifications?

It's Oracle, of course they will.

Or at least, trying to extort or marginalize free/libre implementations as much as possible?

Well, following a link that another poster so graciously provided, it would seem that:

To be honest, I'm surprised that the TCK license for Java SE 7 still contains any pretence that it can be implemented in open source by anyone other than Oracle. At least the restrictions are clear (and I suspect, but cannot prove, that very similar restrictions were offered for Java SE 5 in the Sun/Oracle vs Harmony dispute).

.
Earlier up in the page, he says:

The definition of a "product" contains what looks like an unusual part (highlighted). It appears that a "product" must meet three criteria beyond the basic ones:

        * "have a principal purpose which is substantially different from a stand-alone implementation of that specification"
        * "represent a significant functional and value enhancement over any stand-alone implementation of that specification"
        * "not be marketed as a technology which replaces or substitutes for a stand-alone implementation of that specification"

I believe that Apache Harmony would fail all three of these tests (were the project to try and implement this JSR, which they probably won't). Since a "stand-alone implementation" would be OpenJDK/OracleJDK, the principal purpose of Harmony is clearly the same (not substantially different), Harmony does not offer significant functional enhancement, and Harmony would be marketed as a replacement for OpenJDK/OracleJDK.

So, what I read is that Oracle basically wouldn't allow anybody else to make a JVM if its sole purpose is to be a replacement for the Oracle one.

So, yes, I think everything you ask is likely true.

Re:Somebody should tell us what this really means

[JSBiff]

Well, for Dalvik (and thus Android), there's a legal dispute between Google and Oracle about whether Dalvik infringes Java patents. As far as I know, copyrights are not in dispute. Google says Dalvik is not Java. If Dalvik is not Java, then the issues surrounding the JCP and TCK are completely irrelevant to Google, because Dalvisk is not Java. There's one other bit of important trivia: "Desktop" Java is nominally open-source. "Mobile" Java is a proprietary product which Sun/Oracle licensed to handset makers with somewhat traditional licensing fees.

The TCK is a conformance test that a JVM which wants to call itself "Java" and be officially 'blessed' by Oracle (and thus, immune from patent and copyright lawsuits) has to pass, and I believe that Sun and now Oracle charge developers a LOT of money to get and use the TCK. Thus, to have an official "Java" implementation, even though you don't have to pay for a license from Sun/Oracle because it's nominally open-source, really isn't free, because you can't be "Java" unless you pay up for the conformance test and then pass it. (Which, in my mind, means that Java fails the basic criteria for being open source - it's not really freely licensed, it's only licensed contingent upon passing the TCK which you must pay for).

If Oracle prevails in the Google lawsuit, it may be able to force Google to declare that Dalvik is Java, pay for the TCK, pass the conformance test, and additionally pay for Java "Mobile" licenses (or perhaps, that burden will be passed on to the handset makers, since the handset makers are more the 'point of sale' - e.g. I don't believe Google gets per-handset licensing revenue for Android, they make their money off of the tight integration of built-in apps with Google's advertising supported search and web services). Or, Oracle might settle for allowing Dalvik to be "Not Java", but demand a patent licensing fee from Google or handset makers for use of their patents, but acknowledge Dalvik as a seperate, derivative technology.

If Google prevails, and the courts don't find that they've violated any patents, then this Apache/Oracle JCP thing means absolutely nothing to Google, Dalvik, or Android. Dalvik will continue to be "Not Java".

Re:The Sun has Set

[bberens]

I work at a nearly pure Java shop and last week attended a Java technology related conference (not run by Oracle/IBM). Not one single person there or at my work seems particularly concerned about the future of Java. If for some silly reason Java 6 was the last version of Java ever released I'm pretty sure I'd be writing code for the platform for the next 10 years and it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Re:FTA

[DrJimbo]

Perhaps not strictly to blame but certainly a truckload more hypocritical. Before buying Sun, Oracle was complaining about the very policies it is now trying to enforce. Furthermore, regardless of who started this idiocy (of subverting the TCK, which was by contract ( JSPA) a strictly technical hurdle, into being an excuse to re-write the licensing terms in the JSPA), it is now entirely in Oracle's hands.

If you are implying that Apache has some anti-Oracle grudge, I think the conflict probably started after Oracle launched the first-strike by suing Google over its use of Apache's Harmony in Android (and other stuff. Oracle is being represented by BS&F who mastered the art of being unspecific when they represented SCO vs. the Free world). If Oracle hadn't violated the terms of the JSPA, their law suit against Google would have had no merit because according the JSPA, Apache was supposed to get an irrevocable, license to the very copyrights and patents Oracle is suing over.

If I had to dole out blame I would give 2% to Sun and 98% to Oracle.