Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Java Operating Systems Programming Sun Microsystems BSD

Sun Unilaterally Revokes the FreeBSD Java License 186

Posted by CowboyNeal
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun Unilaterally Revokes the FreeBSD Java License

Comments Filter:
  • by hummassa (157160) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @05:29AM (#11273662) Homepage Journal
    Disclaimer 1: I have READ the Fine Article.

    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.
  • by davegaramond (632107) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @05:34AM (#11273669)
    Actually I'm glad that Sun restricts JDK/JRE distributions. It allows other (and better!) languages to flourish in Linux/BSD environments. Perl, Python, Ruby... I'd hate to hack Java OSS (but I fear in the future we will be seeing more and more C# OSS).
  • by Homology (639438) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @05:41AM (#11273684)
    Justin Gibbs, The foundations founder and financial officer said yesterday that this was just a case of bad communication and that it was already resolved. Poul-Henning

    But a very nice reminder of what SUN can do to those using Java.

  • by breakbeatninja (846922) <envescent@gDEBIANmail.com minus distro> on Thursday January 06, 2005 @06:56AM (#11273828) Homepage Journal
    Sun's Java, a programming language aimed for all platforms and operating systems, supposedly ubiquitous in any computing environment. So, let me ask, why would they, with that goal in mind, revoke *any* license for *any* operating system? They simply limit their potential users and the potential of their language as being widely adopted.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 06, 2005 @08:13AM (#11274029)

    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.

  • by pmike_bauer (763028) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @10:46AM (#11275055)
    The maner in which most people use Java on FreeBSD is not affected by this. Here is why
    1. This only affects binary distributions.
    2. The only binary distribution available is JDK 1.3
    3. Most FreeBSD Java users (myself included) build JDK 1.4 from source.
    4. Most FreeBSD Java users do not use the 1.3 binary distribution.
  • WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @12:41PM (#11276719) Homepage Journal
    While its their product and their choice, the attitude they are expressing makes me want to NOT continue with Java ( or sun ) in any form.

    Revoking existing licenses is just uncool. It also is bad business.

    Some people need older versions of software.
  • by i_r_sensitive (697893) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @01:54PM (#11277819)
    People make excuses for those close to them or those things on which they depend.
    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 patent office and the origins of patent law is quite the opposite. This is called history, and it is fact.

    So you may abhor what that body of law has become, and you may abhor the gross abuses of the spirit of that body of law, but at least do yourself the courtesy to stop propogating lies to yourself. Arm yourself with some facts so that when dawn's battle arrives you at least are oriented in the the direction of the true enemy, and not flailing at his pawns and surrogates...

    Now, copyright law, I agree is nothing but a scam, designed to keep the poor on the bottom and the rich on top. Copyright law is the reason we have no cure for cancer, it is a mechanism designed by the illuminati for the sole purpose of stiffling creativity, preventing the free flow of ideas and information. And you "know" you must be right because your prophet RMS made no use of copyright law when he drafted the GPL to protect F/OSS software...

    There ought to be a new class of logic error for this. Fallacious Appeal to Misquoted Authority or something along those lines...

    The point is, without copyright law, the GPL is just high grade toilet paper. Without patent law, Edison never has the means to realize the inventions of his later years.

    It's called throwing the baby out with the bath water, and it is widely recognized as a sub-optimal choice. Perhaps if we can learn to seperate the abuse of process from the process, we can treat the abuse of process in a meaningful fashion. However, such a goal is nearly impossible to realize when otherwise rational, well-articulated folk refuse to identify the real issue, and consequently dilute and confuse the issue for the rest.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 06, 2005 @04:18PM (#11279979)
    There were then much better alternatives to Java for many programming tasks when Java first came out. Now it's too late. Java is entrenched, and we're stuck with it. At least, some of us are.
  • by boelthorn (711135) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @07:37PM (#11282493) Journal
    Take a look at Common Lisp (see: http://www.common-lisp.net/ [common-lisp.net] or http://www.cliki.net/ [cliki.net] or http://sbcl.sf.net/ [sf.net] ).

    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.

Vax Vobiscum

Working...