FSF, OpenOffice.org Team Reach Agreement on Java 411
Bruce Byfield points out his NewsForge (part of OSTG) article about something good coming out of the conflict over Java in OpenOffice.org. It begins "A dispute between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and OpenOffice.org (OOo) over the increased use of Java in the upcoming version 2.0 release of OOo is over
-- at least for now. The two groups have found a short-term solution, and are working together on
ways to keep the dispute from happening again." The story provides a decent background on why it matters, and shows a surprisingly conciliatory attitude on both sides.
Will this always happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
So it is only natural that they would be still using alot of java , not that i agree entierly with the decision to continue to build upon the java elements but just a little background as t
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the bad old days when the brand-new language "C" was owned by Bell Labs, and they claimed anything you wrote in C belonged to Bell?
Remember how long that was true? As measured in picoseconds?
There are no closed source languages. That's an urban legend. You can try to booby-trap a language, like MS tried to do to Java, but that won't work, either. You may recollect that MS failed in that effort, expensively(!).
It's almost impossible to encumber open source software by using proprietary tools. That's a self-serving tale told by the proprietary vendors, and false.
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
In essense, Java == C++ plus the C++ standard library plus Win32. It's simple to code portable C++ if you use only the C++ standard libraries, but the moment you start using Win32, you have a portability problem. Until something like WINElib makes the Win32 layer portable, any exclusive use of Win32 in a C++ project locks out Linux and other free OSes.
That's the problem. GNU/CLASSPATH has made outstanding progress lately, but it hasn't yet reimplemented all the Java libraries. It'll take some time before it does. Until then, using functions/classes that are not implemented in GNU/CLASSPATH will be a problem for any open source software.
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
What you say is true...until someone like Sun patents a language feature
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
Linus used Java in the kernel?! There I was thinking it was getting faster, and it was because he was rewriting Java code in C all along!
Seriously, the BitKeeper debate has nothing to do with this. He was given a free licence, which was then revoked, as was allowed by the terms of the licence. How is that like Java? If Sun went belly-up tomorrow and/or abandoned Java, I st
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
The concern was that OO.o was using proprietary extensions to Java which aren't well documented and are exclusive to Sun.
That being the case, Sun going belly-up isn't the issue. Sun going all SCO and announcing that from now on anything using their version of Java will have to pay $699 for a license is.
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Informative)
The FSF, Stallman explained, did not have a preference for other programming languages over Java. It simply wanted assurance that any Java code would be compatible with free implementations of Java. After discussion options with Carr, he suggested that the Free Software Foundation would concentrate on expanding the GCJ efforts
Yep. Conflict solved. OO.o can stay free of Sun's JVM if it wishes and GCJ gets some bugs exorcised. Everyone wins.
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:3, Interesting)
The documentation covers the public and protected methods that are available for use by programmers. Private methods, fields, etc. are not important when writing your own classpath since no one should access them anyways unless they are extending your implementation. GCJ contains many private methods within the classes that are not in Sun's JVM, and vice versa.
If you tried to
open source CPUs (Score:5, Interesting)
Here you go [opencores.org]. Check out the OpenRISC 1000 - I am guessing that it will be particularly interesting for you since the 1200 version has been used to demonstrate Linux. Of course the MIPS and Sparc clones can do so as well.
Transmeta was the closest, since Linus worked for them way back when.
Given that the native instruction set was top secret, I would say it was the least open source processor of all.
Re:Will this always happen? (Score:2)
If you're an author and may ever work with third-party libraries, plug-ins or, in the future, web services, multiply license your work and make sure LGPL is in the list.
Most of my work has been GPL or BSD, but in retrospect I'd have better with a medium-severity license like the Lesser/Library GPL. Read RMS's article about wh
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
The folks at Sun did get to choose the tools, that's why they used Java. If the Free Software Foundation had chosen the tools then OO.org would probably use guile or some other Free Software tool.
The problem, of course, is that OO.org's new Java stuff didn't work with any of the Free Software JVMs. Now, that may not seem like a problem to you, but that's precisely the sort of thing that gets the folks at the Free Software Foundation worked up. So what did the FSF do? It looked into forking the OO.org code and replacing the Java dependencies with Free Software. The FSF hackers wanted a version of OO.org that they could use on a completely Free system, and they were willing to put in the work to make such a beast happen. The folks at Sun have a long history of dealing with the FSF, and they knew that the last thing that they wanted to see was a Java-free FSF fork of OO.org that would draw potential hackers away from their codebase. This is especially true considering the fact that distributions like Red Hat (and Fedora), Debian, and many others would almost certainly use the Free Software fork of OO.org by default. So Sun offered to cooperate more with the hackers working on running OO.org on gcj.
That's nothing more than straightforward diplomacy. Neither side got what they really wanted, but it was close enough that the two sides are willing to work together. The FSF would much rather have gcj be the default Java for OO.org, and it would like to see the documentation and everything else reflect the use of gcj and not Sun's proprietary Java, but that's not what the FSF is going to get. What the FSF is going to get is that Sun is going to include fixes that will allow you to use gcj into the main branch of OO.org. My guess is that Sun is going to do just enough for the FSF so that it isn't tempted to fork OO.org.
Personally, I am glad that the two groups worked things out. However, if they hadn't worked things out I would probably have used the FSF branch of OO.org simply because that's what Debian would be able to put into main. Debian's packaging system has spoiled me so badly that I now hate having to manage software myself.
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is more free? 1) A society that allows you to vote for the end of elections, or 2) a society that protects you from doing so?
The principle holds here. Freedom does not necessarily lie in maximizing the number choices.
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect you don't understand what exactly is "free" in this situation.
The GPL makes sure the code stays free. Remember "information wants to be free"? The FSF doesn't care about the programmers, as long as the code remains free.
If you don't like it, don't use the GPL, don't contribute code to a GPL project, and for heaven's sake don't use the Linux kernel because you're too cheap to come up with an OS of your own o
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:2)
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:3, Insightful)
This "I have a right to YOUR source code" nonsense goes past what "free" really means.
I'm sorry, but I have a big problem with this attitude. Someone writes something and shares it with anyone who cares to use it. All they ask is that if you modify the software and distribute your new version that you share your source code changes. If you don't like it, don't take the deal. But complaining that a GPLed software author didn't give you everything you want is going a bit far.
Arguing which license is "
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is "more free for whom".
The BSD licences allow anyone to use the code for any purpose, but that can include taking a free software project proprietary. The GPL guarantees that a project cannot be taken and turned into something proprietary.
RMS and the people who agree with him want to maximize the freedom of the end-user, even at the expense of the developer. The most extreme case of this is that RMS would like to require that all new software be released under GPL.[1] Very, v
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:2)
Re:Free as in "do as we say" (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD is great (IMHO) for things like reference implementations (e.g. for TCP/IP). For things that you want implemented everywhere. But if you don't want your code ending up proprietary then it's not as good. GPL is better at keeping your code open.
Which is to say that there are advantages to each license, and it's not obvious to me that either is inherantly better than the other.
$.02
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:2)
The concern is/was that a free software solution can't have a non-free dependency (Sun JRE). He's making sure that doesn't happen. No one cares that it is written in Java per se.
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny because it basically proves our point rather than supporting his:
"The FSF doesn't care about the programmers, as long as the code remains free."
Yes. Damn you and all of your lives as long as I get what *I* want. Sounds like Stallman.
I've ranted on Stallman more times than I can count, and I don't think i could have put it better in a single sentence. The irony was that it came from a Stallman Supporte
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is, FSF lists the BSD licence as a free software license. Tho the original version has certain "flaws" that renders it incompatible with the GNU GPL.
"What has Stallman done that's original thought"
He like STARTED the whole free software movement, enough said imo.
And of course he's a saint
http://www.gnu.org/people/saintignucius.jpg [gnu.org]
IHBT (Score:3, Informative)
Of course you know that he wrote emacs (it's not a clone of anything). Oh, and gcc.
Re:Will this always happen. (Score:5, Informative)
That's just slander. Do you have any comment implying something like this from RMS? I've never seen one.
Bullshit. Try reading a bit on the FSF website. BSD is specifically identified as a free software license as are lots of others and they have a very clear definition of free software you can use to judge licenses for yourself.
He may prefer the GPL because of copyleft but the GNU project itself chose X (which is MIT licensed) as their windowing system because it was free and ready.
This article isn't about recreating something that isn't GPL either. It's about what happened with Motif and Qt all over again. And he wasn't even talking about a rewrite. KDE used Qt back when it was still non-free and that prompted the creation of GNOME.
Using something like Java has real consequences. For *users*. People on *BSD, BeOS will have a hard time porting/running your software when there is no official JRE offered. Or you could happen to be running Linux on a somewhat less usual processor architechture.
*Sigh* Trolling real hard, aren't you?First of all, why would the GPL not count when it could be argued that it's one of the main reasons for free software's success and is used by something like 70% of free software?
Second, EMACS is very well known to be the original work of RMS and he also wrote the original GNU C compiler. Many of the essential system utilities you use if you're using a GNU/Linux system are a result of the work of the GNU project. I won't even bother commenting on your idiotic remarks on GCJ.
Your beloved BSD still uses some GNU components though. Such as the GNU Compiler Collection which includes "Stallman's Java-clone" and is used to compile each and every application you're using. And don't even get me started on the various GPLed parts. If you're using FreeBSD it also is pretty frustrating to install OpenOffice.org from ports because of the Java dependency. Fortunately Java compiles out of the box so you can still use it. On some other BSD that may not be the case and there are no guarantees that a newer version will still work. Time to go using Windows exclusively, maybe? After all, it has such a nice and free license and everything they do is completely original instead of cloning stuff and then releasing it under the restrictive GPL license.
The concessions (Score:4, Insightful)
This was already being done. There was a plugin interface that hooked into the AWT layer of the JVM, but that was something that was easily replacable by other VMs. Previous versions of OOo (probably from back when it was StarDivision property) used hidden APIs, but this was cleaned up in the 2.0 edition.
Java JRE interested parties provide the support code and take care
of QA, bugs etc.
This sounds like they're moving the plugin code out of OpenOffice and into the JVM. Technically, this is where it belongs, but it's always nice to be able to support the largest number of VMs possible.
OOo Java implementations must be encapsulated with well specified APIs
This is just good engineering design. If you can't produce readable JavaDocs from it, it isn't a good API.
OOo Java implementations must not check against Java versions or
vendors, with the only exception of workarounding bugs
Again, this is just common sense. Checking version numbers is a good way to nail yourself in the foot on future releases.
OOo Java implementations must not use swing, either because no free
swing implemetation is available or because it makes the user interface
inconsistent, this rule might be relativated in respect to 4
This is just common sense anyway. Using Swing would be detrimental to the GUI unless it was decided that the entire GUI framework would move at once. Such a decision would involve the entire OOo community.
the Java baseline is 1.3.1
This is the only concession I see being made. (1.4 & 1.5 have some *really* nice features.)
The amusing part about this is that the whole tirade against Java in OOo is nothing but a farce. A quick check of the 2.0 code finds almost nothing that violates these "concessions", and they amount to nothing more than diplomacy anyway. (i.e. The art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a big stick.)
The truth is that Sun has bent over backwards for the OSS community, and all they get for their troubles are painful stabs in the back. Yeah, Sun's got some loud mouths working for them. But their actions have ALWAYS been honorable. Despite all the nonsense about "contamination", has anyone EVER had Sun sue them? I've certainly never heard of a case! And when Sun realized that the language was confusing, they updated future source releases [java.net] with new language [java.net] that EXPLICITY gives developers rights to whatever they remember. So no more excuses! If you want an OS Java platform, code it. Sun sure as hell isn't standing in your way.
BTW, Mr. Stallman. How's Hurd coming along?
Re:The concessions (Score:2, Interesting)
There are two possible conclusions. Either all Java developers are idiots, too stupid to learn a real language, or these are important rules to nail down before they become problems. Since the former obviously isn't true, it must be the latter.
Re:The concessions (Score:2)
its not GC though which might put off some of the java/C# addicts
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Informative)
Go program Java for a little while. The "hidden" APIs are not a necessary evil, or in any way desirable to use. The very design of the Java platform is so open that those APIs are almost impossible and completely unncessary to use. Pretty much all examples of this usage comes from the 1.1 days when a f
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Insightful)
*shrug* The concern Stallman had was that OOo wouldn't be compatable with (real and hypothetical) Free Java implementations, a legitimate concern given the difficulty of restricting one's self to an "official" API.
I find it amusing that RMS is looking to ensure that a project will be compatable with 'Free' version of a language that was created, developed, fostered and made acceptable by a closed source company. Why isnt he promoting the use of a fully 'Free' language, like Python or similiar (no, Im
Re:The concessions (Score:5, Insightful)
*Sigh*
This is not about whether Sun is a benevolent company or not, or if Java is a good solution or not.
Is Java nice? Yup. Is it the right tool for the job? Obviously.
Are most of the people at Sun trying to be a good OSS citizens? You betcha.
Is Java Free Software? Nope. Not yet, it isn't.
That's where all of the problems stem from.
What if Sun suddenly did turn malevolent (Schwartz - one of the loud mouths - is no fan of the GPL, after all) could they do real damage? Yup.
If a malevolent entity bought Sun - with a depressed Sun stock, it's a real possibility - could that entity do damage? Oh boy, you bet.
It's not stabbing Sun in the back - it's protecting the backs of OSS developers and users now and in the future.
Soko
Re:The concessions (Score:2, Insightful)
Would you like to explain to me WHY THIS IS SUN'S PROBLEM? They have given everything away except for the actual rights to Java itself. If the GNU Foundation can't produce an Open JVM based on open specs and fully available source code, THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM.
If a malevolent entity bought Sun - with a depressed Sun stock, it's a real possibility - could that entity do damage? Oh boy, you bet.
If a malevolent entity hit Linus with a bus and acquired his Linu
Re:The concessions (Score:4, Informative)
You keep turning this into an attack on Sun, and it's not. It's an attack on OOo's reliance on Java, which introduces compatibility problems with Free Software.
In other words, you keep *completely* missing the point.
Sun doesn't have to make Java Open Source, but that's not the issue at hand, is it? Relying on Java is not FSF-friendly, so the FSF will try to convince that project to "stay the course", as it were. There's nothing wrong or "nonsensical" about this at all.
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Insightful)
No reason to shout. The GNU Foundation not having a JVM isn't Suns problem at all. It is still a problem, however, and one that needed to be dealt with.
If a malevolent entity hit Linus with a bus and acquired his Linux trademarks, and with the numbe
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you like to explain to me WHY THIS IS SUN'S PROBLEM?
I don't know if it's "sun's problem", but I would say it's a problem for sun. The problem is that no major linux distribution includes a JVM in its distribution. That makes the Java language far less usefull to developers. If you can't count on a JVM being on a machine, you then have to go through machinations to include a JVM in your software. Even that's difficult since Sun won't let you re-package the JVM.
How is that Suns problem? Well it
The Cough (Score:2)
*Sigh*
Is Java Free Software? Nope. Not yet, it isn't.
*Cough*
Excuse me, but Java IS Free. That is, GCJ and the Classpath version. That is Java, and it's Free. It's hard to put it any more plainly, when the whole artcle was about making sure OOo used Free Java!!!
The Sun VM is not Free. But the Sun JVM is not Java. It's an instance of it.
I never even understood why this was such a big deal when the solution outlined in the story was the obvious way forward - make sure OOo works with GCJ. Problem s
Re:The Cough (Score:2)
Which I fully agree is the solution to the whole problem.
I was merely trying to temper the GPs obvious cry of "Sun would never hurt OSS!" with some reality, is all.
Soko
Re:The concessions (Score:2)
Re:The concessions (Score:2)
Soko
Re:The concessions (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior to this "agreement", all the rest of the terms you dismiss were not certain, the OOo team could have violated them for practical reasons at any time. Now that'll be much more unlikely. The FSF is being quite rational in criticizing the inclusion of Java code into the OOo project. The OOo team has agreed to not fall into the potential traps that the FSF fears. This is, on the whole, a very good thing.
The amusing part about this is that the whole tirade against Java in OOo is nothing but a farce.
In your clearly anti-FSF biased opinion, perhaps. You're not an idealist, but a pragmatist, OK, no big deal. But you'd have to be one hell of a cynic as well, to call it a "farce".
The truth is that Sun has bent over backwards for the OSS community
Prefacing the statement with "the truth is" doesn't make it true. What has Sun done that constitutes "bending over backwards"? In the OSS community, "bending over backwards" tends to mean making your code open source.
Despite all the nonsense about "contamination", has anyone EVER had Sun sue them?
Does the name "Microsoft" ring a bell?
BTW, Mr. Stallman. How's Hurd coming along?
What's that got to do with Java and OOo? Or is it just an ad hominem? I don't know who you are, but it's a good bet that Stallman has done more to make my life better than you ever will. A cheap shot won't change that, either.
The copyleft JVM should have fixed its issues (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't get me started about Apple... (Score:2, Interesting)
Is KHTML benefiting from Apple? Sure. Much? Not compared to what Apple is getting out of it. I thank God the situation is different here. While I understand Stallman's point, I just wish there was a little more respect or understanding for Sun's
The glass is indeed half full. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, your post I thought was pretty good, but this last bit doesn't do the rest justice. Hurd doesn't have the mindshare to make the kind of rapid progress Linux does. What's that to you?
The bottom line here is that Stallman has an agenda. A political agenda. A political agenda based on his philosophical principles. What's wrong with that? And, in this case, he was able to draw some attention to, and to advance the aims of his political agenda. Which is what people with political agendas do.
Since, in the end, he didn't really do any harm to OO, and may even bring it some resources it needs (developers and testers), the final results are win-win, which is an uncommonly good outcome for a political dispute. Granted, a person with a more personable character might have got to the win-win scenario with considerably less heat and fuss, but unfortunately, my experience is that by in large the world effectively ignores those kinds of people unless they have the kind of credibility that only comes with having piles of money at their command. If things were different, then the world would probably be a better place.
Even good people rarely place principle as high as convenience. Incidents like the recent Linuxworld editor ultimatum over Ms. O'Gara's nastiness are, unfortunately, a rarity. For most of the rest of us, principles are really just a vague, far away abstraction, whereas convenience and profit are very clear and immediate. Right and wrong would never play a role in any decision we make, if it weren't for the fear of exposure.
So, we are stuck with gadflies, who vary widely in their admirability, but are universally unlikeable. Nobody enjoys being on the receiving end of a sting, which in every case is bound to seem overly harsh and unjustified. As unpleasant as they are to have around, gadflies play an important function. And if you don't like having them around, consider how fortunate you are not to be one. While I'm sure it has it's rewards, being driven against the current of the world must be a frustrating existence.
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Informative)
Well.. it was not Sun, but ..
From The History of the GPL:
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Insightful)
Such as? No one has come forward with any solid complaints against the 2.0 release. Almost all complaints (e.g. hidden APIs) are against the OLD version of OOo. If you have a solid argument then by all means, make it.
however that really doesn't mean that one shouldn't be able to critizise SUN when they do something bad and stupid
Except that they haven't managed to do anything stupid. They
Re:The concessions (Score:2)
Obviously false. It's the reliance on problematic (to the FSF) technology that this issue (flamewar? WTF?) is about. You *clearly* don't see that as a problem, but you can't call it "absolutely nothing". Not honestly, at least.
his foundation is incapable of managing anything as complex as Java
emacs, gcc, gnu...
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Interesting)
The FSF's failure to produce a JVM based on open specs is NOT everyone else's problem. If Mr. Stallman wants to fix the situation, he should be inciting his troops to fix their Open JVMs. Otherwise he can keep his trap shut, because he has no right to complain.
emacs, gcc, gnu...
Funny, it seems that EMacs and GCC have a lot of help from corporate entities. And what is "gnu"? I'm not familiar with that pr
Re:The concessions (Score:2)
He's not allowed to complain about something he doesn't like, but you are?
Funny, it seems that EMacs and GCC have a lot of help from corporate entities. And what is "gnu"? I'm not familiar with that program.
Funny, but you said, "while simultanously showing that his foundation is incapable of managing anything as complex as Java". The FSF manages emacs, gcc and GNU (GNU is not a program, it's an OS).
Re:The concessions (Score:2, Insightful)
What am I complaining about? Oh yes, that Stallman is being a hypocrit. How is that hypocritical?
Funny, but you said, "while simultanously showing that his foundation is incapable of managing anything as complex as Java". The FSF manages emacs, gcc and GNU (GNU is not a program, it's an OS).
Actually, I was pointing out how you were making my point. GCC gets massive amounts of help from corporations just like Linux and OOo do. Em
Re:The concessions (Score:2)
How is Stallman being a hypocrite? *He's* not using Java, is he?
Your use of the "GNU subsystem" (the proper name for the bundle) is nonsense. You're talking about a bundle of disparate products, none of which even comes close to the complexity of the Java platform.
1. It's properly called "GNU", not "GNU subsystem".
2. It's not appropriate to compare the Java platform with the GNU platform? WTF?
Stallman is
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just not an "AKAImBatman" post without an insult at the end, is it?
Sorry about that, but as you can tell I have a lot of pent up feelings about this issue. From day one all we Java developers have heard from the main OSS community is "Java is not free, Java is slow, Java sucks". This has been very much a last straw for me. I'm so pissed off, that I even took the lead on resolving the supposed "licensing issues" that are preventing Linux distributions from redistributing Java
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The concessions (Score:2, Insightful)
Just look at the efforts the RedHat devs had to put into making OO2 run with a free java and you will know what I'm talking about.
"Except that they haven't managed to do anything stupid. They leveraged the Java platform with the full blessing of the OOo community to produce a quality produc
Re:The concessions (Score:2)
Well, Mr. AC, there's concrete proof. Since you're so adept at this, would you please provide information on what troubles they had and how those troubles are Sun's fault. Last I heard, RedHat's version was working fine.
You present a false dichotomy, as if the only option is to either use Java, or not keep up with technological progress. That's of course simply bs.
Okay, sho
Re:The concessions (Score:3, Informative)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Sun has removed all of the sun.* references from OpenOffi
Re:Get off your horse (Score:3, Insightful)
You *can't* be serious! Stallman has been one of the most reliable people in the computer industry. You can *always* be sure which side of the argument he'll be on--even if it's not always your side.
Personally, while I hold software freedom (in the FSF sense) as a value, I don't hold it as the ultimate value. In that sen
Awesome suggestion! (Score:2, Funny)
I'd also like to see any posts that use the phrases "just works", "just don't get it" or "the debian way" automatically modded -5; -10 if they are capitalized a la "The Debian Way". Posts that preface Linux with "GNU/" should be modded "Tiresome, Even to Friends".
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Unbiased (Score:5, Informative)
This was also posted on the NF page.
Re:Unbiased (Score:2)
A surprisingly conciliatory attitude on both sides (Score:3, Insightful)
Zealotry as a force for good (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to the type of zealotry which some people say is killing Debian.
Exactly, this improves things for all (Score:3, Insightful)
That really was the most efficient solution, and Stallman being the eminent software developer realized this when he had all the facts.
Really I feel it unfair to label Stallman a "zealot" when really it should be more like "informed and stubborn for the good of all".
More credit should be given to Red Hat here (Score:2)
Conflict? Only one side was whining (Score:5, Insightful)
What concessions did the "other side" make?
Re:Conflict? Only one side was whining (Score:3, Informative)
Not forking. Being willing to accept an OpenOffice version that had Java in it at all.
Re:Conflict? Only one side was whining (Score:4, Funny)
To stop bitching quite as loudly for a little while
Bottom line: policy (Score:2)
"What we need is a way to distribute a version of OpenOffice that we can count on not to encourage people to use any non-free programs. If the developers of OpenOffice want to maintain their version with this policy, that would be ideal. Until recently I assumed that they did maintain it this way, but it appears they don't: with the current policies, any release of OpenOffice might depend on a non-free program merely because that was the fastest way to implement something. (...) We need
Wanting to help out? (Score:2, Informative)
Feedback wanted on how the different distributions are handling this, plus pacakge build instructions.
double standards (Score:3, Funny)
Re:double standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:double standards (Score:2)
Stallman has a bit of pragmatism in him. If you notice, before there was a viable kernel to run all the GNU code on, he didn't complain bitterly about people who ported it to whatever random proprietary Unix they wanted to run it on.
I agree with him. Relying on proprietary BIOSes is the way to get something like Palladium snuck into your computer and suddenly preventing you from running anything on it the manufacturer doesn't approve of. Goodbye general purpose computing.
As for patented microprocessor
Re:double standards (Score:2, Informative)
The issues are good to air (Score:3, Insightful)
The proposal to use GCJ was a good one, and I think raising these issues benefits open source even though it exposes the frictions between the players in the movement.
Spoiler (Score:2)
Ta-da.
It's not over until there's an open distro (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason this is so important is that if all the source is openly available, nobody can make it go away. It's essential to avoid "drug dealer marketing" - the first one is free, but then it's going to cost you. There have been too many products that started out "open", and then started to cost money once they had users locked in.
The typical progression for psuedo-free software is
Examples are Intellicad [intellicad.com], Sendmail [sendmail.com], and QNX [qnx.com]
Re:It's not over until there's an open distro (Score:3, Interesting)
Between about 1995 and 1998 a massive user community emerged. Then Fraunhofer Gesselschaft emerged after the silence and wanted $10,000 US per codec-using program (even the OSS ones).
Nice that they decided to listen to their customer (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice article, until he makes it sound like having priciples is a bad thing. The issue with FSF is not one of "conscience" but of licenses that can/will be an impedient of free use of the software. This goes beyond conscience and ventures into the realm of property rights that typically can deny others of free use. That is why Stallman in the past warned of the issue of using Sun Java.
I think OOo need to look at FSF as representing customers that have a particular demand and accomodate that demand. All too often critics misuse the word "conscience" to disparage FSF community (customers) demands.
This is simple "marketing 101" -- listen to the demands of your customers
Portable OpenOffice and Java (Score:4, Interesting)
Crap like this... (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't the FSF seem a bit demanding? (Score:5, Insightful)
surprisingly conciliatory? Why surprisingly? (Score:2)
The FSF, at least, is run by grownups, and I have no reason to doubt that there are grownups in charge at OO.org.
Given that, why would we be surprised that they looked for a constructive way to settle their differences?
The FSF and Stallman is correct (Score:5, Interesting)
If you cannot package and distribute the application
"with the JVM" it is not and never will be free.
I happen to like java, but I sure would never use it in something I was gonna distribute.
Stop spreading FUD (Score:3, Informative)
The J2SE platform and the JRE are free to download and to use for commercial programming. They are also free to redistribute, if distributed with a value-add application or applet.
Seems to me that OpenOffice.org qualifies for that.
Re:Stop spreading FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
to replace any
component(s) of the Software,
From:http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/j2sdk-1_5_0
Seems to me this imparts Sun the right to stop any Linux or BSD distro from distributing any other non-Sun Java project.
How does that sound to you? Restrictive?
Hmm... still don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have java installed.
All of the functionality that worked in 1.0+ works better in 2.0, and I don't use any of the additional features. Obviously, some people will want to use those features, but wow, aren't we always the ones yelling at MS for their stupid "wizards" and now we're mad cause we can't use the OOo ones? And isn't MS Access the bane of all db developers everywhere? And now we're upset cause we can't use our own half assed, not nearly as nice version of Access?
Seriously people I don't understand. OOo 2.0 is not "crippled" without java, it works just fine for 100% of the existing (ie 1.0) functionality, and all you're missing is some gay wizards, and a half baked db frontend that crashes all the time. I installed java for about 10 minutes to check out the java features, and then uninstalled it, cause well they sucked. I know this is only a beta release and I'm sure 2.0 will be better.. but it won't be anywhere close to usable, not for anything remotely real.
this was no "accident" (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately, open source developers are noticing this more and more and are starting to take countermeasures. Hopefully, in the long term, this will lead to unencumbered versions of Java becoming available and acceptable.
Re:this was no "accident" (Score:3, Insightful)
Quit spreading FUD.
Java Trap Illusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Also The Harmony project [slashdot.org] (if it is successful) would seem to lay to rest any FOSS advocate's qualms about Java.
FSF programmers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, you can be a volunteer programmer for FSF working on OO.o, but that is hardly different from being a volunteer programmer working on OO.o.
What you can do is to be a volunteer on OO.o and be aware of the need of the GNU project ( acompletely free system). Which I suspect is what RMS hoped for in the first place.
Re:Java on leenucks (Score:2)
seriously though.
Its dependant on your distro , if you use an rpm based distro then go to the sun site and download the RPM
If you have a debian based distro then you could try with the self extracting installer or use blackdown which i belive is in many many repositorys.
Re:Java on leenucks (Score:2)
http://rpmseek.com/rpm-pl/j2se1.4-blackdown-sourc
there seems to be a source rpm for it
i cant see it on the site itself , perhaps i am confusing two things though
I appoligise for any disinformation if i was mistaken .
Re:JavaTrap? (Score:5, Informative)
There's a hell of a lot more for Java. For example, there's no other platform that has as many high quality, cross platform database drivers. And for that matter, Java has quite a few free database engines (HSQL, McKoi, Derby (Cloudscape, etc.) At the end of the day, there simply isn't any other solution that's as well supported and ubiquitous as Java.
At the risk of starting a flamewar, I have to say that I'm proud to have been a vocal early adopter that helped Java reach the status it has today. It's a good language, a good platform, hosted by a good company, and supported by many. Only the original Unix platform had such a profound effect on the industry.
Re:Let that be the end of it (Score:2)
When did Microsoft force programmers to use their proprietary extensions to Java? Yet Sun jumped on that. And rightfully so.
Re:how will businesses respond (Score:2)
It's all noise at the "higher level" view.
Re:What about StarBasic? (Score:4, Informative)
StarBasic is powerful enough for wizards and dialogs. Many of OOo's AutoPilots are written in Basic.
Is there more heavy lifting that really needs Java?
Yes.
Or Python, but...
Or is this a matter of more people know how to code in Java vs. StarBasic?
Using OOo's API with Java is much more difficult than using the same API from OOoBasic. It is the case that there simply are things that cannot be done in Basic...
Re:no more "Java Trap" BS? (Score:3, Insightful)