![Java Java](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/java_64.png)
![Operating Systems Operating Systems](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/os_64.png)
![Programming Programming](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/programming_64.png)
![Sun Microsystems Sun Microsystems](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsun.gif)
![BSD BSD](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/bsd_64.png)
Sun Unilaterally Revokes the FreeBSD Java License 186
ravenII writes "The FreeBSD foundation has announced the news of Sun terminating the SCSL OEM-like license given to FreeBSD foundation. The foundation's attempts to contact Sun to renegotiate the license have gone unanswered. Javalobby.org also carries the news." It would seem that Sun has terminated all SCSL licenses across the board in preparation for the release of Java 5, and while the renegotiation process may be a bit bumpy, it's likely that Java will continue to be ported to FreeBSD.
I never understood (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that any benefits there might be would be lost because they are opening themselves up to having an open source, or at least more easily re-distributable JVM become the most common, and therefore standard, VM.
Besides, if they are giving it away for free anway, what benefit is there to forcing anyone who wants it to get it from Sun?
Re:I never understood (Score:3, Interesting)
Sun's SCSL was originally a poorly considered defense against a licensee trying to pull the same embrace, pervert and promote strategy that Microsoft employed with th
Re:I never understood (Score:2)
Apple distributes their own, with features that have only now made it into the Sun JVM for other OSes (shared memory, etc). It is most definately first tier, and has been done with Sun's full support.
The FreeBSD issue was a licensing mistake, and is now cleared up. It shows the weakness of non-free Java for the community, but it is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to make Java slow. Could you provide such evidence for your argument?
Point being... (Score:2)
IRT Apple, Sun did not Give support, they Sold support
Re:Point being... (Score:2)
Re:I never understood (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is kind of funny considering the Solaris JRE is pretty much widely considered to be the worst version available. As anyone who has had the "pleasure" of working with said version will know, it has had a whole slew of issues and is to this day not on par with the Linux or Windows versions.
Re:I never understood (Score:3, Informative)
However, FreeBSD has not actually paid up to have the JVM branded as Java(tm). So Sun says, that's not branded Java, and if you keep saying it is, we will revoke your distribution license. And they did.
It's still dumb, because you can still get Java(tm) directly from Sun.
Though Java(tm) is available free, if you want to distribute it and you aren't Sun, you're
Re:I never understood (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the FreeBSD Foundation actually paid the cash to get FreeBSD certified for Java. This means the jdk/jre package has to pass a series of tests. Then, and only then, you can distribute java and have your OS approved. The problem is that Sun has changed the licensing for Java5 and a new agreement hasn't yet been reached.
--
HawkinsOS [hawkinsos.com], kick Smorgrav in the ass.
it's not a naming issue (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether FreeBSD calls it "Java", "Mocha", or anything else: Sun has revoked the license to the code and the technology itself; FreeBSD can't ship it under any name.
Java is and remains a proprietary system. Running Java on FreeBSD or Linux is a risky proposition: Sun can revoke your right
Re:it's not a naming issue (Score:2)
Re:it's not a naming issue (Score:2)
Case in point, if I develop software under the GPL, and then decide to move to a proprietary model after I have a substantive userbase, then it would be 100% legally correct for my annoyed users to fork the last GPL version and start their own (e.g. OpenMOSIX, OpenGFS, OpenSSH, etc.)
Whilst the FreeBSD Foundation's rights to distribute the software can, in fact, be revoked at any point, Sun ca
Re:I never understood (Score:5, Informative)
This means that you do not understand the meaning of java as far as Sun marketing strategy is concerned.
Java as far as Sun is concerned is a method of pushing a large number of customers onto Sun's native *sparc/Solaris platform and the associated software and support contract. The only reason for the existence of ports to other platforms is to bait people into switching.
Re:I never understood (Score:1)
Please remember that practically every CPU architecture besides x86 is big-endian; Mac's, 99% of UNIX (AIX/HPUX/Solaris) machines, Z/OS machines, etc.
At some point in the distant future x86 will cease (as all things must come to an en
ARM and MIPS endianness in game consoles (Score:2, Informative)
Please remember that practically every CPU architecture besides x86 is big-endian; Mac's, 99% of UNIX (AIX/HPUX/Solaris) machines, Z/OS machines, etc.
ARM7 and ARM9 can be set to big-endian or little-endian, but they're frozen to little-endian in every Nintendo Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS handheld video game system. The MIPS processor in Sony's PS1 and PS2 video game consoles is configured little-endian as well.
Re:I never understood (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I never understood (Score:2)
What does Microsoft have to gain strategically from Little Endian? Practically that's where it's code runs but Microsoft isn't beholdant to Intel.
Actually, Microsoft's newest platforms are the PowerPC which is going into the XBOX. Microsoft would like to have its own platform with XBox3, so it will actually be at a loss with little-endian
Java basically was a wrong product for Sun (Score:2)
Better alternatives to Java (Score:5, Interesting)
I've switched over to Ruby and my productivity has skyrocketed. Anyone who's done object-relational mapping using Java for example, should take a look at how Ruby does it using ActiveRecord.
I still use C++ for some programming tasks but find the need to do so less frequent each year. Thank God for smartpointers (boost library).
I might take a look at OCaml in the near future. Heard great things about it.
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:3, Informative)
My recommendation: learn Ocaml.
Microsoft and Mono (Score:3, Interesting)
So: using Java is not safe from a legal perspective because Sun owns Java, both the major implementations and the platform itself. On the other hand, using Mono is safe from a legal perspective (at least no less safe than any other free platform) because Microsoft clearly doesn't own it.
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Right now the documentation is very poor and tools are rudimentary, but it seems to bring a lot of the benefits of scripting languages like Python or Ruby the the Java VM. The ability to use the Java libraries is huge; even huger is the ability to compile to class files, which allows you to use it every place you can use java. By that I'm not talking just about operating systems but things application servers and database triggers.
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
I find Java to be way too restricting. But then again, I'm a script monkey.
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a language supporting every paradigm you'll ever need. And if not you can (portably!) code it. The hacker's language of choice.
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Re:Better alternatives to Java (Score:2)
Ah, I understand now. (Score:1)
BSD the OS, not BSD the license; it's a fairly oddly worded title...
Re:Ah, I understand now. (Score:5, Informative)
My guess is that FreeBSD has to something similar.
Re:Ah, I understand now. (Score:1)
This license was for precompiled binaries.
Re:Ah, I understand now. (Score:2)
that's bad (Score:2)
Sun won't let you download the JRE/JDK source unless you agree to their license terms. If you do agree to those terms, you become ineligible for participating in many open source projects because the conditions "contaminate" you. BSD seems to be a really brilliant way for Sun to infect a lot of FOSS programmers with their viral license. And unlike the GPL, which can be said to infect software
Re:that's bad (Score:2)
Is this another Soviet Russia joke?
Re: (Score:1)
Story is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, the story can be summarized as follows:
1. Sun dropped the ball by mistake.
2. FreeBSD Foundation didn't know what was going on, and mentioned the problem in their newsletter.
3. People at Sun realized that they had dropped the ball.
4. Sun picked up the ball and put it through the goal posts (or whatever the right sports analogy is).
This whole story is really just a misunderstanding. Sun wasn't trying to be evil, they just made a mistake, and as soon as they realized that there was a problem they started doing all that they could to fix it.
The new license should be announced Real Soon Now.
Re:Story is wrong (Score:2)
Re:Story is wrong (Score:2)
A case of bad communication (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A case of bad communication (Score:5, Insightful)
But a very nice reminder of what SUN can do to those using Java.
Re:A case of bad communication (Score:2, Funny)
So...what do you think about
Free .NET clone vs. free Java clone (Score:2)
The .NET framework has a free implementation [mono-project.com]. The Java platform has a free implementation in the combination of GCJ [gnu.org], Kaffe [kaffe.org], and GNU Classpath [gnu.org]. Which is more complete in practice?
Re:Free .NET clone vs. free Java clone (Score:2)
Re:A case of bad communication (Score:2)
Someone modded you as "+1 Funny" :) On the more serious note, Microsoft does not claim .NET to be Open Source Run Everywhere(TM) like Sun. They do have some patents that are troublesome for the Mono project. Appart from the patents issue, Mono is GPL and thus less risky. I don't use Mono myself, though.
Re:A case of bad communication (Score:2)
Re:A case of bad communication (Score:2)
Unlike Sun, Microsoft isn't pretending that
If you want to use a free and open source system that's like Java or
Re:A case of bad communication (Score:2)
Stanford University Network.
Re:A case of bad communication (Score:2)
MOD PARENT WAY, WAY UP (Score:1)
Re:A case of bad communication (Score:1)
I've seen your immature post here on /. now and then. You are representing that company, perhaps started it? In case you are part of that company, it's clear that your posts is only doing damage to it. Perhaps that's your point?
Re:A case of bad communication (Score:2)
February 30th, surely.
Who is the rambling, raving lunatic now, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
What it is: Sun licenses the JVM to the FreeBSD community under the SCSL. Sun unilaterally has the right to revoke it. Sun DID revoke it, albeit in preparation to negotiate terms for new community license. Guys at FreeBSD do not know who to ask right now. E-mails from non-revenue-generating FreeBSD got unanswered.
What it really is: RMS is right. Anyone deploying Java apps under FreeBSD for a reason or another is now a hostage in this situation. Why? Because Sun *can* (and, depending on shareholders $$$ desire, *will*) pull the plug at any time. Why? Because the JVM and standard classes are NOT FREE SOFTWARE. Free Software is about freedom, not about price.
Oh, come on, everyone with prospects of starting their first Java projects, especially governments going the Free Software way, should DROP it and go to other platform.
Re:Who is the rambling, raving lunatic now, uh? (Score:1)
Your point is valid - Sun can revoke the license unilaterally. However, when you shot off this post you already had a couple of factual errors: Sun revoked it by mistake, the guys at FreeBSD knew who to ask, and their emails did get answered.
In short, for not having done your research (there are not that many comments here yet, and they were fewer when you posted), you look at least a bit raving IMHO.
No need to attack me... (Score:5, Informative)
B) It is not relevant that the revoking was by mistake. Eventually, it can be done on purpose, too. And that is the problem.
C) No, they did not knew exactly who to ask, and at least when the FreeBSD foundation report was done they did not receive any answer. It's irrelevant for the discussion of this piece, IMHO, that they eventually cleared up the situation. Had the climate at Sun WRT FreeBSD been different, Sun could stall this and caused a lot of damage. And they still can, at any time, because Java is not Free Software.
D) I am not raving and nor is RMS, which is whom I was referring to. Java is not Free Software. If you are considering Free Software (as a lot of governments are doing nowadays with a lot of good reasons to do so... see http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html [gnu.org.pe]) you should not consider Java as a good option for software development (unless Kaffe [or other Free JVM] + GNUClassPath is good enough for you). And this was my conclusion in the end of my post.
E) As an aftertought, disclaimer, etc: I started to post my piece as soon as I saw the blurb (when I woke up this morning) and it had only 9 posts at -1. When I finally organized those three short paragraphs, and clicked Submit, it had 20+ posts, with some (3?) of those under the "A case of bad communication by phkamp (524380) (#11273654)" post. I took good 10-15 minutes to write this answer up, because I don't troll. I believe that RMS is right and that proprietary software is a legalized scam. And I really like J2EE (technically) as a platform but I really dislike the power that Sun exerts over it and the MS-like lock-in that it represents.
--
And this is not a sig.
Re:No need to attack me... (Score:2)
Its only a problem if your an idiot and didn't read the licence that Java is distributed under. Also did you know that your 'right' to GPL software can be revoked as well if you don't follow the terms of the GPL? Is that not also a problem by your statement here?
It was relevant that Sun revoked FreeBSD's license to Java since it was a mistake. Mistakes happen.
you did not articulate your argument well. (Score:2)
Re:you did not articulate your argument well. (Score:2)
So, just to clarify: (Score:2)
B. this applies IIRC to other JVMs for Linux and Windows too.
C. those facts (A and B above) permit that Sun exerts enourmous pressure on the Java Free Software Comunity, because...
D. (surprise, surprise)Java is not Free Software.
E. (conclusion) Thou Shall Not use Java to build Free Software.
Got it?
Re:So, just to clarify: (Score:2)
You must feel like a real genius to be able to point out that Java is not FOSS, your only the millionth o
Re:So, just to clarify: (Score:2)
What I wrote and you refused to read is: once you develop under Java, you are under Sun Microsystems' reign. I would not recommend it. There are options. Especially if you want to develop free software. You are trolling. End of transmission.
Re:So, just to clarify: (Score:2)
How so? Can Sun control how I distribute my own software? Can they force me to use a specific license for my application? This thread makes me think folks are as terrified of Sun as Microsoft is of the "viral" GPL.
Keep in mind that Sun != Java much like Red Hat != Linux.
OK, I'll bite. (Score:2)
The scenario: an application that must be readily distributable and runnable on Solaris, GNU/Linux, Windows, OS X, and (hopefully) *BSD. The definition of "readily" is:
- build once (meaning compile once)
- no installation of third-party software. In other words, the application's distribution package must have everything it needs to run
- it must install correctly on all of the listed operating systems simply by running a wizard and taking the default options
Business issues
Yeah, that's what they'd like you to think. (Score:2)
NO.
Sun CAN revoke any license for any "official"-JDK.
Red Hat can NOT revoke any license for any GPL'd software.
If you are not using kaffe/gij/gcj/... + Classpath, your JDK license can be revoked at ANY TIME and that is what I am trying to explain for six or seven posts.
Oh, yeah, they cannot control how you distribute your own software but they CAN control how you distribute THEIRS (their class libs, for instance) and they CAN control your USE of
You have bitten allright. (Score:2)
Let's see your requirements:
-build once: ok?;
-install: you can make an executable with everything needed, will install nicely;
small developer pool? I don't think so. lots of documentation around.
developing facilities? hmm... lots of Good and Very Good IDEs (DrPython, Eclipse, KDevelop and Komodo come to mind), unit testing, practically everything Java has in better packaging.
Mono/Gtk# is another alternative only if you don't have Win98 clients
Some more things I missed (Score:2)
Ok. My point. In my 3million people city, there are at most 10000 good developers and I'm acquainted with circa 2000 of them, having headhunted around a l
Re:You have bitten allright. (Score:2)
That's where your argument breaks down (as does Stallman's): its all well and good to champion doing everything only with free software, but the practical situation is quite different. The 100% as-defined-by-RMS free software means C, perl, or Python.
Re:Yeah, that's what they'd like you to think. (Score:2)
Okay, I'll bite... here are the details regarding termination of the license to use the Sun Java Development Kit 5.0 [sun.com].
Pay close attention to this part...
Re:You have bitten allright. (Score:2)
versed in other languages too... most project teams can be composed with 30-40% of the developers in this category)
B. IRT 100% free software
Re:You have bitten allright. (Score:2)
As I said, this is where your argument and Stallman's breaks down. You have to make a living wage, which means you have to have the skills that employers are looking for. The skills in demand at this point in time, in my area, are .Net (and to a lesser degree VB) and Java. It is just that simple. My family doesn't give a rat's ass about ethics if I'm not feeding them or housing them because I refu
Re:No need to attack me... (Score:2)
Far from it, really. Sun can, more or less, at any moment revoke the license at their own discretion. This is not the case with BSD or GPL license.
Re:No need to attack me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like perhaps their dearly held views that patents and copyrights are just legal scams?
So, copyright and patents are just legal scams perpetrated by the scammers, or the man, or whitey, or whatever to keep you down are they? So when the patent office opened all those years ago it was just to keep you down? Oh, sorry, I forgot about feeding your over-weaning paranoia...
No, in point of fact the raison d'etre for the pate
The real problem, to me is that ... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is, mainly, what happens today to the real *producer*: programmers get salaries, journalists (who are the *real* writers in terms of quantity) get salaries... while Britney/Eminem gets a lot of $$$ for
Why me exactly... I dunno... (Score:2)
The duplicity of Java (Score:2, Insightful)
Migration (Score:2)
Re:The duplicity of Java (Score:2)
Emulation (Score:2)
Netcraft confirms: BSD trolls are dead. (Score:4, Funny)
There is absolutely no need to freak out... (Score:3, Insightful)
never contribute to a FOSS Java project (Score:2)
By agreeing to Sun's source licenses, you have agreed to a lot of legal restrictions on what you can and cannot do. I hope you are aware of those restrictions and disclose them clearly when you participate in other FOSS projects. For example, you will not be able to contribute to GNU gcj or Kaffe.
This confirms it (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Revoking existing licenses is just uncool. It also is bad business.
Some people need older versions of software.
Linux ABI runs Linux JDKs on FreeBSD (Score:2)
Re:About the money. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:that's why java should be gpl'd (Score:3, Interesting)
1/2 my companies applications run on Tomcat the other half run on IIS. They both are behind firewalls and are both very stable (you don't have to reboot for every windows update, just stop and restart the services the same way you do in Unix-based OSes).
I'm
Re:that's why java should be gpl'd (Score:2)
You sure? I think one problem on most Windows O/Ses is you can't remove/overwrite a file whilst it is in use. Whereas with Unix stuff - you can. So on windows the update software has to either rename any file/executable that is currently in use, copy in the new file and then remember to delete the renamed stuff AFTER everyth
Re:that's why java should be gpl'd (Score:2)
How hard is it to (in Windows):
1. Stop the Service (10-15 seconds)
2. Update Files (1-2 minutes)
3. Restart Services (10-15 seconds)
SQL Server is the same way except it does those things for you.
If you want evidence simply test it out for yourself. All you need to do is check the dll/exe/etc versions that are being updated.
Personally I generally do reboot because I'm lazy. But if you're really concerned with up-time it can be done.
BTW Here is a l
Re:that's why java should be gpl'd (Score:2)
Reboot has the nice property of actually testing that the server works after a power outage. Now, Microsoft Windows is a bit excessive on the need for rebooting, but that's another story .-)
Re:that's why java should be gpl'd (Score:2)
I think it's interesting that in a thread about using Java on FreeBSD, you suddenly compare Sun to Microsoft, a company that has not contributed or licensed or otherwise engaged the FreeBSD community on any level.
The second point I'd make is that when you
Re:that's why java should be gpl'd (Score:2)
Stopping and restarting a service for any OS update other than a new kernel is basically unacceptable in production.
Hell, I can even upgrade my application server to a new version in the middle of the day, when it's handling 600+ requests per second, (or update the version of libc its using, networking libraries, etc) witho