Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

FreeBSD Foundation Announces Java License for Free 137

Posted by timothy from the nice-hot-cuppa-java dept.
nt2UNIX writes: "There is an article on Daily Daemon News that the FreeBSD Foundation has announced the inclusion of a FreeBSD native SUN Java SDK and RunTime Environment for the January 2002 release of FreeBSD 4.5 The whole announcement can be found here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD Foundation Announces Java License for Free More

FreeBSD Foundation Announces Java License for Free

Comments Filter:

  • WOW (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The FreeBSD Foundation relies solely on contributions from individuals and businesses to fund its activities. In negotiating the JDK/JRE license, where both parties were in almost immediate agreement to the license terms, the Foundation still spent in excess of $3000 on legal fees. Highly qualified and experienced legal counsel is the expensive yet necessary cost of protecting the best interests of the FreeBSD Project.

  • Too bad the licensing blew it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by freebsd guy ( 543937 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @01:04AM (#2743420)
    As a former FreeBSD committer, I worked extensively with the team that produced the JRE/JDK project. Since programming languages can only be protected by patents (not copyrights), our original intention was to craft a clean-room version of Java that we could release under the BSD license, just like everything else in our distribution. Unfortunately, manpower was tight, and we were not able to do it all on our own. Hence, we discussed the matter with Sun and (IMHO) compromised our principles (unrestricted distribution in source and binary forms) in order to get the project done.

    Our experience should serve as an important lesson to open source developers who try to tackle too large a project by themselves: do not sell your soul to Corporate America. Sure, we have a native JRE/JDK, but the only advantage is that it is native - not Free in any stretch of the imagination. (Not even restricted-Free, e.g. GPL).

    All that aside, I have been testing several snapshots of the Java tools and they are very responsive and stable. More so, I am afraid, than Blackdown - although the ultimate test will be to see how it compares with the JRE running on a Solaris/SPARC machine.

    freebsd guy

    • Re:Too bad the licensing blew it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Metrol ( 147060 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @02:16AM (#2743569) Homepage
      Hence, we discussed the matter with Sun and (IMHO) compromised our principles (unrestricted distribution in source and binary forms) in order to get the project done.

      Certainly a fully open and free version of Java would have been preferrable and all. Even still, is this really that much different then having the Netscape 4.x browser included? For years this has gone along with both Linux and FreeBSD to provide what the community couldn't, a functioning browser.

      Just because Netscape provided a browser didn't mean that work wasn't done to produce a more open product. The folks over at KDE stepped up to the plate and knocked one outta the park with Konqueror. And of course we now have Mozilla going pretty nicely. Two great apps displacing the closed source version that preceded it.

      All I'm getting at here is that Sun need not displace any and all efforts that might look to go into a JVM for FreeBSD. Maybe it fills the role needed for a couple of years until interest in doing a fresh version as you described gets enough going to actually make it happen.
      • "Certainly a fully open and free version of Java would have been preferrable and all. Even still, is this really that much different then having the Netscape 4.x browser included? For years this has gone along with both Linux and FreeBSD to provide what the community couldn't, a functioning browser."

        Unfortunately, yes, it is a bigger deal than Netscape, because Java, unlike Netscape, is used to build other applications. Should the licensing change or Java should go away, a host of other apps go with it.

        As a Java developer, I'm very impressed with the language, and have so far been pretty happy with Sun's performance as a steward. But I would like it if the language and libraries had a cleanroom-free implementation. Hopefully, though, you'll be right and Kaffe and GNU Classpath (or something) will eventually bring a stable, up-to-date, Free Java.

        phil
    • On my UltraSparcII300's the sun JRE sucks-ass.
    • As a former FreeBSD committer, I worked extensively with the team that produced the JRE/JDK project. Since programming languages can only be protected by patents (not copyrights), our original intention was to craft a clean-room version of Java that we could release under the BSD license, just like everything else in our distribution.

      But Java isn't just a programming language. When we talk about Java, this includes a decent VM, the huge libraries plus a couple of tools that need to be provided.

      The naked Java isn't very attractive. It would look similiar to what the GCC java offers.

      Alone implementing the standard libs, plus AWT and SWING from scratch would have been a huge task.

      Ok, now there will be "blessed" version of Java, will this hinder any effort to create a 100% free version (any legal hook in the Sun community license?).

      Regards,
      Marc

  • This is nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by metlin ( 258108 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @01:06AM (#2743430) Journal
    Since Microsoft is slowly trying to push third party development applications away from it's platform (apparently to make way for .NET), this is a good sign.

    I'm not a big fan of Java, but if there are enough number of viable platforms for development, I'm sure attention could be shifted from the Win* platform to other unices.

    FreeBSD is a very stable and robust platform, but to what extent has it managed to penetrate the existing MS market? Apparently Linux seems to be doing this, and the reason is not anything else, except support for existing applications.

    I'd like to see where this takes the FreeBSD marketshare.
    • I'm sure attention could be shifted from the Win* platform to other unices.

      Win* == Unix? Wow, how misinformed can you be...?

      • Other unices.
        Other than Solaris, (also by Sun).
        ... shifted from the Win* platform to other (non-Solaris) unices.

        He threw you a curve. You missed.

  • Java license for Free (as in ???) (Score:4, Informative)

    by GGardner ( 97375 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @01:12AM (#2743450)
    Well, it isn't free as in speech, cause we don't get source code, which means it is x86 only (amoung other issues).


    And the FreeBSD team had to pay $3k in legal fees to lawyers to wrangle licensing terms, so it is hardly free as in beer.

    • Very true. But the good news is that we are making some leeway into getting stuff ported our way, from companies that are pretty stubborn (if you do not know what I mean, go read the Sun Java (TM) License).

      "...With an officially licensed binary Java distribution..."

      Well, this does necessarily mean the end of a few license wars for running Java (TM) on FreeBSD, but atleast a native port has been done and something _is_ better than nothing. Not that ppl are going to begin using Java on FreeBSD tomorrow, but it definitely is a first step.
    • Well, it isn't free as in speech, cause we don't get source code, which means it is x86 only (amoung other issues).

      It's O.K. for it to run on x86 only. The focus of FreeBSD is to run as well as possible on x86 machines. If you want to run on other architectures, try NetBSD [netbsd.org] whose motto is ``Of course it runs NetBSD.''

    • And the FreeBSD team had to pay $3k in legal fees to lawyers to wrangle licensing terms, so it is hardly free as in beer.


      Um.. Nobody held a gun to their head and made them hire lawyers. Sun, who built and owns the IP, graciously let them use it Free as in Beer. While I know everyone who codes should give away all their source out of the kindness of their hearts, the for slimy corportate types the folks at Sun are being pretty decent towards a group improving a competing Unix OS.

  • This is huge (Score:3, Interesting)

    by astrashe ( 7452 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @01:14AM (#2743461) Journal
    I love it -- the lack of solid java support is the biggest problem I have with FreeBSD.

    Now if only the same thing would happen with OpenBSD -- we could write tomcat based web apps, and wouldn't have to worry so much about being hacked.
    • Now if only the same thing would happen with OpenBSD

      There's a good chance the FreeBSD binaries of these two software packages will work under OpenBSD (and NetBSD's) FreeBSD emulation. Give it a try!

    • Re:This is huge (Score:2, Insightful)

      by m_ilya ( 311437 )
      Now if only the same thing would happen with OpenBSD -- we could write tomcat based web apps, and wouldn't have to worry so much about being hacked.

      OpenBSD is not a silver bullet. It just comes with more sane defaults and its core have seen more audits probably. It doesn't magically protect applications your wrote and it doesn't protect applications installed from ports from hacks. Your code still have to be audited for bugs and your admin still have to patch installed applications if they show up on bugtraq.

    • It seems, there are already some people running Orp+Classpath with serious apps. Unfortunately no usable GUI classes yet, but the potential is there.
    • There is still no support under FreeBSD for Hotspot, Hotspot client, or Hotspot server.

      If you want to actually deploy services (e.g. JBoss), or run desktop apps (e.g. NetBeans), stick to Linux.

  • ... that a FreeBSD CD can legally include a port of Sun's JDK/JRE? I suppose this saves users the trouble of downloading, but a script could have automated that. So it's a big win if you have a FreeBSD box that's not on the net. Is this supposed to be a big deal?

    Sun ought to be paying FreeBSD to include Java. Well, they really ought to make Java free as in free speech.

    I won't be surprised if in a couple years a truly free .net implementation has surpassed java on free *nix systems due to Sun squandering its ~5 year headstart.

  • FreeBSD will have a native Java. FreeBSD will also have a native port of C# tools through Corel. Linux will have to wait for Ximian to code up Mono. Looks like its linux playing catch-up now. Oh wait, they linux has real databases. Forget I said any of this.
    • FreeBSD will have a native port of C# tools through Corel? How's that? Linkage?
    • JRE/JDK has been available for some GNU/Linux distributions for a while, and some distributions ship it already (like Conectiva and Slackware).

      Corel's .NET implementation won't be free. That is, only FreeBSD users will be able to choose to be controlled by a Microsoft division. If you value your freedom, you should wait for Mono or Portable.NET, both of which will run on FreeBSD.

      - Evandro
      • If you value your freedom...

        My freedom means I can choose open or proprietary software. My freedom is meaningless without choice.

        Using the Sun JRE/JDK may mean lesser utility than an unavailable Mono or Portable.NET, but it is still utility. It doesn't *remove* any of my freedom. Although it doesn't add any, it does add utility. Overall it's a net win. If Mono were available, and it ran Java applications, then I would probably choose it because I get added utility *and* freedom. But as long as the Sun JRE/JDK doesn't take away any freedom I currently possess, I am still just as free using it as I would be not using either product.
  • I'm sending $10 to the foundation. 299 more of
    the same donation, and they'll have the lawyers
    paid. Come on, it's only $10 bucks -- just skip
    that ${quantity_of_cold_beverage} next weekend ;-)

    If you can afford more... The foundation /is/ a
    501(c)(3) non-profit, so you could get a bit of
    a tax credit on your donation if it is postmarked
    before 31 Dec 2001.

    for full details see: http://freebsdfoundation.org/

  • Hm... don't know. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by burtonator ( 70115 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @02:37AM (#2743614)
    I am a big fan of Java. I think my accomplishments speak for themselves. I have done a lot of work under Jakarta and founded two of its core projects.

    That said. I am very upset at what SUN has done to systematically *destroy* Java's potential.

    In 1995 everything was great, Java was going to change the world.

    Then they decided to play games, they pulled out of the standards committees and now there will be no ECMA or IEEE standard for Java.

    Not only that but they have shown that they have NO interest in EVER Open Sourcing Java.

    Every new Java specification is dumped into the JVM as proprietary code.

    I mean I can understand that Open Sourcing a large proprietary product like Java can be hard. Good examples are the Mozilla and Tomcat projects. Proptietary products can end up using libraries that you don't have the license too. Not only that but you have to get sign off from all the morons that think proprietary is the only way to go.

    But SUN *continues* to dump code into the proprietary JVM making it bigger and more bloated than ever before.

    In case Some of you don't know, SUNs MO for extending the VM is to work on a dedicated sub-project outside of the VM and then getting it targeted for the next revision.

    So for example JSSE (Java Secure Socket Extension). This is a external library that can just be plugged into any VM. Instead of releasing this as an external project that has different licensing they just dump it into JDK 1.4 with the same old stupid non-OSS license.

    THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT SUN!

    I think it is great that FreeBSD can now distribute the JDK.

    It just seems too little too late for me.

    Java has real competition now. They are not the ONLY game on the block.

    Python and C# are going to give you a REAL run for your money SUN.

    So, they way I see it, you have two options:

    1. Loose. C# is an IEEE standard as well as the CLR. When mono is successful no one is going to want to use your proprietary JVM anymore.

    2. *WIN* Open Source license the JVM. Yes... I know it is scarry but this is you ONLY choice. Java still has a lot of great momentum. (*cough* Jakarta *cough*)

    Clearly you aren't interested in the standards process, this is fine. I can't blame you. Standards are not a panacea! Nice to have but not really a requirement.

    So just BSD license it and be over with it. MS isn't going to steal it! They aren't interested in Java anymore.

    What? Aren't going to Open Source Java?

    Fine. I am just going to use C#.

    Sorry if this seemed like a troll. I am just sick of these stupid games :(

    I just want to change the world. Is that so bad :)

    • Re:Hm... don't know. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by markj02 ( 544487 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @03:12AM (#2743665)
      C# is an IEEE standard as well as the CLR. When mono is successful no one is going to want to use your proprietary JVM anymore.

      Well, first of all, AFAIK, C# is an ECMA standard, not IEEE. Now, I don't get your complaint. You say that there is a problem with Sun "dumping proprietary libraries" into the Java spec. But the Java language, JVM, and core libraries are as-well specified as C#/CLR, and they are stable. Beyond the core ECMA specs, Microsoft is completely proprietary, with NO free implementation at all and NO decent specs. And there is no guarantee that Microsoft will even stick to their spec--they will likely extend the hell out of what they submitted as a standard. Sun at least writes pretty good specs for what goes into new releases of the Java platform and they give you a free implementation.

      When mono is successful no one is going to want to use your proprietary JVM anymore.

      Why would anybody care about Mono? It's going to use non-standard APIs on a little-used platform.

      2. *WIN* Open Source license the JVM. Yes... I know it is scarry but this is you ONLY choice. Java still has a lot of great momentum. (*cough* Jakarta *cough*)

      That makes no sense either. Why do you care about open sourcing Sun's JDK? Implementing C#/CLR as part of Mono is at least as hard as implementing Java/JVM. Yet, you seem convinced that Mono will be successful. Well, if the Mono people can hack up C#/CLR, why does it matter whether Sun open sources Java/JVM? Why can't someone else just implement a high-performance Java/JVM? And what has Microsoft done for the open source community later? Ever?

      Sun makes available a great implementation under usable license terms. If you want something open source, rather than whining and stomping your foot that they aren't giving you more, go implement your own. Sun has already given you more than Microsoft likely ever will.

      And, in fact, the equivalent of C#/CLR/CLI already exists for Java in open source form in the form of several open source Java compilers, the Intel ORP, and open source libraries. If that functionality is what you or the Mono project are after, you could have had that years ago.

      • Re:Hm... don't know. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by informer ( 20888 )
        Well, first of all, AFAIK, C# is an ECMA standard, not IEEE. Now, I don't get your complaint. You say that there is a problem with Sun "dumping proprietary libraries" into the Java spec. But the Java language, JVM, and core libraries are as-well specified as C#/CLR, and they are stable.

        This is a good point, however going to the trouble of standardizing the various components of .NET implies a comitment to sticking with those standards.


        Beyond the core ECMA specs, Microsoft is completely proprietary, with NO free implementation at all and NO decent specs. And there is no guarantee that Microsoft will even stick to their spec--they will likely extend the hell out of what they submitted as a standard.

        I agree that these are mostly advantages for Java however its not very likely that microsoft will break compatability with the spec as far as breaking applications that are complied for, and conform to it. To be fair, the microsoft .NET implementation has not even been released yet, but its clear that the ECMA documents are for the most part workable.

        Why would anybody care about Mono? It's going to use non-standard APIs on a little-used platform.

        Little-used platform (.NET?)? This wont be true for much longer. It has not even been released yet and there is a significantly large community of developers already. People (in significant numbers) WILL care about Mono if it makes porting between windows and other OSes very easy. They will care even more if Mono implements most of Microsoft's "non standard" API's. Since when did Microsoft's non-standard API's ever stop WINE from at least trying to implement anything? I guess you're saying WINE is also useless, along with support for NTFS, SMB, etc etc. The list goes on.

        • Actually WINE is useless. Name one thing that it is good for? Certainly a real waste of effort. By the time they get Win95 Win32 compat. everyone will have moved on to the newer versions of Win32. E.g. the WINE developers are going after a moving target that they can never catch up to.
        • "Why would anybody care about Mono? It's going to use non-standard APIs on a little-used platform."
          Little-used platform (.NET?)? This wont be true for much longer.

          Mono will not implement .NET--it can't, because there won't be anything like a complete spec for .NET. The Mono authors have already said that they really just care about implementing something that is kind of like .NET, not something that is fully compatible.

          Since when did Microsoft's non-standard API's ever stop WINE from at least trying to implement anything? I guess you're saying WINE is also useless, along with support for NTFS, SMB, etc etc. The list goes on.

          Wine is largely useless: it runs few programs, and almost none of them reliably enough for daily use. Even IBM (with a lot more resources) didn't manage to create a Windows compatible system that was sufficiently useful to catch on. Linux support for NTFS was a herculean effort of reverse engineering, took years to do, and still isn't recommended for writing. SMB is only well documented because it didn't come from Microsoft originally, and Microsoft has been trying to break it ever since (viz their password shenanigans). Yes, the list goes on, and it shows how Microsoft has been trying to use proprietary standards to maintain a monopoly and keep compatible implementations from springing up.

    • Re:Hm... don't know. (Score:3, Informative)

      by rusti999 ( 167057 )
      Make a clear distinction between specification and implementation. Sun has made the specification for Java open for all to see. JDK is an implementation of the Java platform that happens to be written at Sun. By no means this is the only way to develop and use Java. For instance, you can grab Jikes compiler [ibm.com], compile your Java program, and run it on Jalapeno VM [ibm.com]. You are even allowed to write your own implementation of the compiler and the VM. One catch is, if you want your implementation to be certified as 100% Pure Java, you need to pass the Java Compatibility Kit (JCK), which you need to license from Sun.
      • It's quite likely that most real world Java programs won't run on Jalepeno (aka: Jikes RVM) -- according to the Jikes RVM Q&A Overview [ibm.com]

        [...] The Jikes RVM is inadequate for programmers who need a complete Java platform, since it has incomplete functionality. The Jikes RVM does not support many libraries (e.g., AWT, Swing, J2EE), user-defined class loaders, security manager, bytecode verification, and many other features that need to be present in a production virtual machine.

        [...] The Jikes RVM does not provide a complete platform that conforms to the Java Virtual Machine specification.

        [...] It was not written to be a complete Java VM.

        Whilst it would be possible to bring Jalepeno up to these standards of functionality with a team of open source programmers, in reality it was never designed to be a complete JVM (it's a research 'toy') - the work involved to make these changes would not be trivial.

        That said, it is open sourced, and as the old addage goes "where there's a will there's a way".... so perhaps Jalepeno will (eventually) become a full spec JVM?

    • Re:Hm... don't know. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by macpeep ( 36699 )
      "But SUN *continues* to dump code into the proprietary JVM making it bigger and more bloated than ever before."

      Not into the VM. Into the core API. There's a HUGE difference. Of course the two walk kinda hand in hand but that's like saying KDE and Gnome are in the Linux kernel.

      "Java has real competition now. They are not the ONLY game on the block. Python and C# are going to give you a REAL run for your money SUN."

      Umm, C# yes! Python, I don't think so!! Some other people would say Perl, but seriously, they are not in the same league if you talk about industry wide acceptance. C# and .NET will definitely give Java a run for their money though!

      I don't see how being an IEEE standard has any direct correlation with success or failure of a language though. Visual Basic is not a standard of any kind and it's one of the most used programming languages / systems out there. Java is also hugely popular and is also not a standard. JavaScript hasn't become any more or less popular after ECMA made it a standard ("ECMA script"). Or if it's more used now, it's not because web designers would go "oh! it's an ECMA standard!". The list goes on with other technologies too.. Flash (as in web animations) for example.

      "So, they way I see it, you have two options:"
      [snip]
      "2. *WIN* Open Source license the JVM. Yes... I know it is scarry but this is you ONLY choice."

      Time to wake up! Java is doing just fine and even if Sun doesn't have a totally optimal strategy with it, you're living in la-la land if you seriously think that open source licensing the JVM is Sun's "only choice" (you even spelled only in all-caps!). The community process is working fine and Java is just getting wider adoption and acceptance every day. Most new cellular phones that are going to be released in Asia and Europe during 2002 and onwards will come with a JVM built in. More and more web servers and application servers run Java.

      Open sourcing Mozilla did dick all for Netscape. Sure, it is going to produce a nice browser a year from now (five years down the road) when Mozilla completes, but as far as grabbing back market share and battling the competition, it has failed miserably. Check the logs of any major "neutral" web site and you'll see that Mozilla has completely marginal adoption. Neutral here means such sites where the main users aren't gear heads.

      "Fine. I am just going to use C#."

      I saw similar reactions when Microsoft came out with J++. People paniced, accused Sun of "destroying Java" and predicting that Java would be dead within a year, replaced by "Microsoft Java". This was around 1997 or 1998 or so.. Don't remember when exactly. Lots of people were talking about jumping ship. I guess it just goes to show that Sun and the Java developer community might have more of a clue than you think.
    • I mean I can understand that Open Sourcing a large proprietary product like JHava can be hard. [...] Proprietary products can end up using libraries that you don't have the license to.

      This is not even the case for JDK, or at least wasn't 2 years ago.
      The blackdown people and various others have always had access to the source code and could build it without requiring proprietary libs, so it's just a matter of wanting vs. not wanting to open source it.

      100% agreed that they'll lose if they don't make the right decision, and make it soon.
    • Not only that but they have shown that they have NO interest in EVER Open Sourcing Java.

      Why should they? It's only ONE implementation of many, and as e.g. IBM has shown, it's not even the best. It's like demaniding that AT&T must "open-source" their C++ compiler in order for GCC to exist.

      If you want an open-source JVM and compiler suite, you are free to write them, but it's not a requirement that it must be Sun's implementation any more than any C++ compiler for Windows must be based on Microsoft Visual C++.

      Python and C# are going to give you a REAL run for your money SUN.

      Um, no. Not at all. Or do you really believe that the hundreds of large companies who write Java software are going to switch languages and lose all the mature libs that exist for Java?

      C# is an IEEE standard as well as the CLR.

      It has been SUBMITTED to the ECMA (not IEEE), but I'd like to see link to info that it actually has been APPROVED as a standard. The last spec document I saw had the entire chapter on exceptions missing, for instance.

      And it's not like it has helped Smalltalk, Ada or CLOS that they are standardized.

      Open Source license the JVM.

      Why? Why can't the OSS community (if such a thing really exists) write one from scratch, like they have for practically everything else?

      Fine. I am just going to use C#.

      You are for all practical purposes saying you're going to use Windows, then.

      • It has been SUBMITTED to the ECMA (not IEEE), but I'd like to see link to info that it actually has been APPROVED as a standard. The last spec document I saw had the entire chapter on exceptions missing, for instance.

        The difference between submitted and approved is an important point so I checked for the current status at ECMA [www.ecma.ch] where the NEWS link on the front page led to this:

        Assembly met in Montreux on 112the December 2001, and approved 33 revised and 7 new Standards. Among the new Standards, the files of Standard
        ECMA-334 [www.ecma.ch], C# Language Specification, and Standard ECMA-335 [www.ecma.ch], Common Language Infrastructure (CLI), are already available in this web site and can be freely downloaded.

        An ECMA TR, ECMA TR/84 [www.ecma.ch], related to Standard ECMA-335, has also been approved and can be found here.

    • I learned Python and now I'm learning C#. They're both pretty damn good.
    • Instead of complaining about opensource this opensource that. Why don't you explain how open-sourcing Java will make it beat C# and the .NET momentum by simply having it as open-source? If it was standardized, yes I can see that, but simply openening it's source for the JVM? Don't think so. I see no benefit here.
  • Cool, now this means that NetBSD and OpenBSD can use the Sun JDK and runtimes :) I love the binary emulation.
  • Kaffe [kaffe.org] was originally BSD license, then gpled. is that anything to do with this?
    and i'm wonder why kaffe latest released was on 2000

Slashdot Top Deals

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Close