Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle Now Wants To Give Java EE to an Open Source Foundation (infoworld.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the runtime dept.

An anonymous reader quotes InfoWorld: Oracle wants to end its leadership in the development of enterprise Java and is looking for an open source foundation to take on the role. The company said Thursday that the upcoming Java EE (Enterprise Edition) 8 presents an opportunity to rethink how the platform is developed. Although development is done via open source with community participation, the current Oracle-led process is not seen as agile, flexible, or open enough. "We believe that moving Java EE technologies to an open source foundation may be the right next step, to adopt more agile processes, implement more flexible licensing and change the governance process," Oracle said in a statement...

Despite its desire to retreat from Java EE leadership, Oracle said it plans to continue participating in the evolution of Java EE technologies. "But we believe a more open process, that is not dependent on a single vendor as platform lead, will encourage greater participation and innovation, and will be in best interests of the community"... Oracle's goals for offloading Java EE would have Oracle not lead the project as it still effectively does with Java SE.
Red Hat's senior principal product manager called this "a very positive move," while Eclipse's executive director said that moving Java EE to a vendor-neutral open source foundation "would be great for both the platform and the community," adding "If asked to so, the Eclipse Foundation would be pleased to serve as the host organization."

68 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Translation by darkain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We can't milk this for licensing money anymore, so we no longer want to invest in it"

    1. Re:Translation by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We can't milk this for licensing money anymore, so we no longer want to invest in it"

      "Yay, if Oracle hands Java EE over to a FOSS foundation we can finally fix all the things that are wrong with Java and that we've been bitching about Oracle being unwilling to fix for years."

    2. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Will they stop suing Google for using the API?

    3. Re:Translation by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      It was not for their lack of trying. Heck they even went after Google for their use in Android, but GPL prevailed on that one.

    4. Re:Translation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      What should the GPL have to do with the Oracle / Google fight over Android?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Translation by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Oh stop it already. Most people are already tired of people subverting non-political posts.

    6. Re:Translation by rholtzjr · · Score: 2

      "Fair use" once Java was released under GPL(2007). Appeals court agreed.. However Oracle filed another appeal, so it seems that is not over yet.

    7. Re:Translation by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      No.
      Translation: Too litlle too late. Java died with generics. Every other (recent) language is going away, Perl, Python, Ruby, ...

    8. Re:Translation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Fair use, especially reimplementing an API, has nothing to do with the GPL.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Translation by rholtzjr · · Score: 5, Informative
      And yes, I understand that this eventually became Java API vs just Java (which in my opinion was a "ooops we want a do over" by Oracle AFTER they saw Android take off). The first judge I believe had it right in the first place. And he expressed his concerns (excerpt):

      Each command calls into action a pre-assigned function. The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability.

    10. Re:Translation by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      The fair use direction was just what Oracle tried under the Copyright Act because the Patent path was denied when Sun released to GPL. I believe the appeals court got it wrong in 2013 as section 102(a) does not have any reference to programming language and it does NOT fall into the categories listed (methinks Oracle found a judge to fudge the interpretation), so 102(b) should have applied.

    11. Re: Translation by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      "Winter is coming."

      A GoT viewer might be able to tell me if this is funny. All I know about GoT I learned from memes.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    12. Re:Translation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Answered to the wrong post?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Translation by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Addition to the previous post

    14. Re:Translation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, got it meanwhile :)
      I was reading backward aka in timely order.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Translation by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Yea, sorry, I screwed up that post with the method in which I submitted.

    16. Re:Translation by TechnoJoe · · Score: 1

      This should be modded funny, not insightful.

    17. Re: Translation by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      So java died nearly ten years ago.. before android even took off. Yeah, keep telling yourself that

    18. Re:Translation by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Will they stop suing Google for using the API?

      Maybe Oracle should have sold Java EE to SCO.

      [*ducks*]

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    19. Re: Translation by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Winter came a LONG time ago and the White Walkers fucked JEE in the eyehole. It ain't a hippy; it's a shambling mound.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
  2. A good move by Martin+S. · · Score: 2

    This is good for Java and good for Oracle.

    Java has become mired in bureaucracy under Oracle.
    Java is not a core produce for Oracle, but a cost.

    1. Re:A good move by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Java has become mired in bureaucracy under Oracle.

      I am not sure going FOSS will help. There are so many parties invested in Java these days, that even if going FOSS, and in order not to explode into a thousand irrelevant forks, Java will remain mired in bureaucracy. It wasn't Oracle that created the bureaucracy, that was a huge millstone around Java's neck way back when Sun owned it.

  3. Fix the installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At last the runtime isntaller can stop trying to mess with my browser settings and anoying me with popups to do an update?

    1. Re:Fix the installer by arth1 · · Score: 1

      At last the runtime isntaller can stop trying to mess with my browser settings and anoying me with popups to do an update?

      This is Java EE (Enterprise Edition), not the Java SE runtime that integrates with your web browser. Many if not most machines that run Java EE won't have a display or a web browser.

    2. Re:Fix the installer by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 1

      Java EE does not have an installer. You're thinking of Java SE.

  4. Finally by f00zbll · · Score: 1

    I really hope Oracle hands off Java to Eclipse or Apache. That would make me happy.

    1. Re:Finally by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apache Foundation and Red Hat seem to be the two entities that may have enough momentum to absorb something this big. Eclipse would be nice, but can they grow that much that quickly without hurting their core?

      Anyhow, beware of Ellisons bearing gifts.

    2. Re:Finally by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Apache Foundation and Red Hat seem to be the two entities that may have enough momentum to absorb something this big. Eclipse would be nice, but can they grow that much that quickly without hurting their core?

      Anyhow, beware of Ellisons bearing gifts.

      Not necessary. Just throw it up on GitHub and open an issue torrent.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  5. So sad... by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Where will I get my yahoo toolbar for my browser?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:So sad... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Where will I get my yahoo toolbar for my browser?

      The Nigerian Prince still offers it. Just keep an eye on your inbox for an announcement.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  6. Give it to Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Give it to Mozilla, it's where open source software goes to die.

  7. They want a "more open process"? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Put it in the public domain. Can't get much more open than that.

    And what is an "Open Source Foudation"? Sound pretty weaselly to me. A tax dodge perhaps?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:They want a "more open process"? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Put it in the public domain. Can't get much more open than that.

      Until someone forks an incompatible version, and hides the changes. The GPL is designed to keep that from happening.

      Be careful when you wish for something to be put in the public domain. Even though the forked binary blobs will eventually be public domain, there is no guarantee that the source ever will be.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  8. Looks like they won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember reading in a comment here that Eclipse was named after the intent to blot out the Sun (Microsystems). Looks like they'll have that opportunity.

    1. Re:Looks like they won by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I remember reading in a comment here that Eclipse was named after the intent to blot out the Sun (Microsystems). Looks like they'll have that opportunity.

      I think the market eclipsed Sun before Eclipse did. But I agree with your point.

      And in light of this, I propose that we declare Monday, August 21, 2017 to be Open-Source Java Day. Because Eclipse.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. not the big problem with java by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    minor version number changes breaking API so apps no longer worked, that's the big problem Java EE under Oracle has. Incidentally, it's now also the problem the Oracle DBMS has had since version 10.x

  10. That would open a oath to iOs by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    I hungry for an JBC interpreter on iOS since ages.
    We have ahead of time compilers like Avian, but an interpreter would allow to work more with reflection, bytecode morphing, runtime code generation, integration of languages like Groovy, useable for scripting the main application.
    Something like HyperCard, runnning in a JVM with Groovy as scripting language ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  11. Depends on the license by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    If Oracle wants to kill it off, just give it to some organization that requires all future contributions to be licensed under the GPL without a classpath exception. Say goodbye to development of commercial Java software like the original Minecraft.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Depends on the license by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      and the BSD license would allow the original minecraft.

    2. Re:Depends on the license by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      BSD - truly free as in freedom.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Depends on the license by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      BSD - truly free as in freedom.

      Until someone forks an incompatible version and hides the changes. Then you can't see the source of the software running on your system. No more freedom for you.

      You can't have true freedom without giving up a little of it. The GPL is a reasonable compromise.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Depends on the license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      BSD - truly free as in freedom.

      BSD, freer for developers, less free for users. GPL, less free for developers, freer for users. Computers exist to serve users, not the other way around. That's why Linux is more popular than BSD, today, even though BSD started with a massive lead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Depends on the license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a silly talking point. Users and developers are not completely separate entities, and even if they were, that wouldn't explain why the GPL is popular, since it is developers who choose the license. GPL vs BSD choice is simply developer preference vs. developer preference.

      BSD is definitely the freer licence, and GPL definitely promotes a goal a significant number of developers like more. Don't pretend otherwise.

    6. Re:Depends on the license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is a silly talking point. Users and developers are not completely separate entities, and even if they were, that wouldn't explain why the GPL is popular, since it is developers who choose the license.

      Many of the developers who made Linux great have explicitly stated that they chose to contribute to Linux specifically because of the license, and that it preserves freedom for other users. Don't be disingenuous. That only impresses idiots.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Depends on the license by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Wrong - you're completely free to use the non-forked version. Forks are just that - forks. The original, under the original license, still continues to exist.

      And it should be the developer's choice as to what they feel is a reasonable compromise - not the user. The user is always free - completely free - to vote with their feet / dollars. If they make something that's closed source that people feel is worth the price, how has anyone's freedom been compromised?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Depends on the license by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And what does that have to do with the fact that the BSD license is, in absolute terms, freer? There's nothing in it that restricts developers from releasing their source code, same as the GPL. The freedom to choose the license should be up to the developer. The freedom to use the product should be up to the user.

      The GPL imposes requirements on both the developer and the user that don't exist with the BSD license. Developers must be able to supply source for any program they distribute, and users who want to distribute copies of the "free GPL" license are similarly required to distribute source on demand to anyone they distribute to.

      So what happens when the gpl app you distributed when the source is lost or otherwise not available (web site goes dark, developer dies, etc)? You're still on the hook to distribute the source, even though you were assuming it would always be available for download from the developer. All of a sudden you're legally liable for breech of contract and breech of license. If the recipient had used it because they understood that the source would be available if required (say, for customization or bug fixes) and now they can't, you're legally on the hook for all their losses.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Depends on the license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And what does that have to do with the fact that the BSD license is, in absolute terms, freer?

      It is absolutely a freer license, in practice, for developers who are making use of the code. It is absolutely a less free license, in practice, for users who would like to benefit from open source. They are less likely to get the code actually used in their devices if it is BSD-licensed. It absolutely depends on your point of view, and if your point of view is not that of the users, then your point of view is a minority one.

      The GPL imposes requirements on both the developer and the user that don't exist with the BSD license.

      That's false. Users do not have to do anything to comply with the GPL unless they are distributing the program to other users. At that point they get into a position where they may have to provide source code to them if asked, or at least make a good-faith effort to do so. But then they are not merely users, they are distributors. That's not a normal use case.

      So what happens when the gpl app you distributed when the source is lost or otherwise not available (web site goes dark, developer dies, etc)? You're still on the hook to distribute the source, even though you were assuming it would always be available for download from the developer.

      If you're actually concerned about that (and it is not likely a realistic concern, but put that aside for now) then it's easy enough to simply download the sources at the same time that you download the binaries. The terms of the license are not arduous, nor difficult to comply with.

      If the recipient had used it because they understood that the source would be available if required (say, for customization or bug fixes) and now they can't, you're legally on the hook for all their losses.

      Then it's really not a good idea to set that expectation without preparing to fulfill that requirement. Absent a distribution license, you simply don't have the right to distribute a program based on BSD code; if the "author" doesn't give you the sources, you not only can't reproduce the program, but you also lack the right to redistribute the binaries (absent some other distribution license which permits you to do so.) But the GPL provides a distribution license which you can reasonably fulfill at an extremely minor cost. The program has to be GPL-licensed, and if they distribute it to you they have to give you the source as well, which they can't stop you from distributing. I'm failing to see how that is not more freedom (again, for the user) than the BSD license. Now, nothing in the BSD license precludes you also granting a binary distribution license, but then, if you actually own the copyright then nothing prevents you from dual-licensing your GPL software, either.

      TL;DR: The BSD is the freer license for the developer, but the GPL is freer for the user. In the case where the developer is the user, the developer is more likely to get the source code in the first place if the code is GPL, which in turn increases their freedom, meaning that the GPL is in practice freer for more people more of the time even if the BSD is the freer license in a vacuum — where we don't live.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re: Depends on the license by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      Developers ARE users. Haven't you seen Tron?

    11. Re:Depends on the license by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Wrong - you're completely free to use the non-forked version. Forks are just that - forks.

      Until you get forked, then you're completely forked and everything is a forking mess.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    12. Re: Depends on the license by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      [agree with all your other points; one quibble...]

      The BSD license encourages leeching.

      I'm with you, but you misspelled theft.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    13. Re: Depends on the license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Developers ARE users. Haven't you seen Tron?

      Tron is one of my favorite movies, but the majority of users are not developers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Depends on the license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Especially since Linus himself says otherwise.

      No, he does not. You are a liar. Go away, we have more than enough liars on Slashdot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re: Depends on the license by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      morals you made up between your ears. they don't exist, no one has to live as you say.

      The programmers chose to use the BSD license. if they didn't like it, they could use GPL or other licensed framework. Nothing stolen, nothing immoral.

  12. Apparently no posters so far know wat Java EE is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But I guess I should not be surprised, it is slashduh after all.

  13. when something don't give money to Oracle ... by Yonsy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They release this, and in many cases after become polluted by the same Oracle. OpenOffice is practically dead, Hudson is a dead corpse now when you talk about CI, Netbeans was proposed by the same Oracle for pass to an Apache Incubator project. MySQL is in a close match against MariaDB and Percona, after stupid attempts to complicate the release of the source code.

    This will be the first time that Oracle give the product BEFORE screw up and kill this, after almost 7 years (Sun acquisition by Oracle finished in 2010). I maintain my doubts, more based in the privative licenses that Oracle can have in several JEE components, before gives this to an Open Community. This was an attempt with OpenJDK and OracleJDK "differences".

    1. Re:when something don't give money to Oracle ... by kn · · Score: 2

      You missed OpenSolaris, perhaps their biggest fuck up of all. Disappointingly, all of this was totally foreseeable before the acquisition. IBM would have been a much better home for Sun.

  14. Just let it die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Java EE pretty much just waits for other people to come up with solutions, then they get a bunch of PhDs together to construct a specification and implementation that's overly complex and complicated ("It's theoretically perfect!"); that's full of badly-named classes, methods, and annotations (because all the intuitive names are already taken by the framework they're trying to keep people from realizing they're unsuccessfully ripping off); and is functionality inferior in a multitude of ways ("If we added that feature that everyone needs to make this at all useful then it would no longer be pure! IT MUST STAY PURE, MY PRECIOUS!").

    The world just needs to let Java EE die a swift and painful death.

  15. Nice by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can we now integrate it to systemd please.

    --
    Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
  16. Advice from Eclipse Foundation? Really? by jtara · · Score: 1

    Let them both die!

    Dinosaurs.

    Messy messes IDEing messy messes.

  17. Fuck you, Oracle. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Fuck you, in your stupid fucking face, you greedy bastards. I hope you choke on the bile that you are trying vomit upon us. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Fuck you, Oracle. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, in your stupid fucking face, you greedy bastards. I hope you choke on the bile that you are trying vomit upon us. ;)

      I hear you, dude. There are many here who would like Larry Ellison to go fuck himself.

      Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he married himself.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Fuck you, Oracle. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he married himself.

      That's some crazy dennis rodman shit right there. Maybe he's also friends with Fat Un. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  18. Java EE != Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Java EE is a set of libraries written in Java to build "Enterprise applications". I don't know anyone who uses Java EE as it has been largely replaced with Spring Framework (which pretty much does the same thing, only better). So Oracle giving up on Java EE is nothing new or significant as they still own and control the Java platform. The "EE" in the name makes a huge difference...

    1. Re:Java EE != Java by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well...

      What's happened is that Java EE has adopted inversion of control, which was popularized by Spring; it's not the same as being "replaced by" Spring.

      The reason you probably don't know anyone using Java EE is that it does something which is quite useful to a very small number of applications: it makes it easy to create operations that are both atomic and distributed. But that means it's not "scaleable" by modern Internet standards of scalability where consistency requirements are typically relaxed to allow gazillions of transactions per hour to take place. Which is smart. You don't want to imagine you have a requirement for perfect distributed consistency everywhere if you don't really have one, because it's hard.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Java EE != Java by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Java EE is more than Spring offers as 'alternative'.

      E.g. SOAP and REST based on annotations. Or lets say, Java EE defines them and Spring impements parts it sees fit and gives alternatives to other parts.

      Spring was a nice alternative when EJBs still were heavy weight. Right now I don't realy see a reason for it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  19. What are they giving exactly? by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 2

    Java EE - Java SE = stuff we can do without more and more.

    Java EE > Java SE, meaning everything.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  20. Donate it to the .NET foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not?

  21. Custodial Enterprise Solutions by jman.org · · Score: 1

    Seems the obvious choice would be the Libre Foundation, but my snarky humorous side would love to see Google take over and somehow use the stewardship in their never-ending fight with Ellison et all...