Sun relicenses Java under GPL

Discussions

News: Sun relicenses Java under GPL

  1. Sun relicenses Java under GPL (43 messages)

    The rumors have been confirmed by Sun: Java is going to be released in full under the GPL v2. The initial plan is to release Hotspot and the javac compiler under the GPL v2, with the rest of Java to follow in the first half of 2007. Java EE will also be opened under the GPL, as well as J2ME. The Java specification will remain under the control of the JCP. The GPLed components will be hosted in the JDK communities on dev.java.net. Initial components (javac and Hotspot, as well as Javahelp) are from the Java 7 codebase, as Java 6 is almost entirely finished; Java 6 will eventually be put under the GPL as time permits. The key behind moving to the GPL is to drive more volume and more adoption for the platform. The GPL helps get Java into some markets that it hasn't served as fully as it should - such as educational markets, governments in the developing world, and some commercial customers - as well as, obviously, some distributions of Linux which insist not on Linux-friendly licenses but on actual GPL licensing. GPLv2 was chosen over GPLv3 for fairly obvious reasons: GPLv3 isn't finished yet! Sun is, they said, working with the FSF on defining GPLv3. So! The cat's out of the bag: Sun's promise to open Java is well underway to being fulfilled. The GPL should help protect Java from malicious forks, while providing access to the code for the community to port or apply changes at need. What do you think of Sun's plans? What do you hope for Java's future with this development?

    Threaded Messages (43)

  2. Re: Sun relicenses Java under GPL[ Go to top ]

    The entire SDK should be available for download as open source come May 2007. Sun also plans to open source the rest of it's software suite (SOA + Identity Management). See detailed story here: http://www.sda-india.com/sda_india/psecom,id,102,site_layout,sdaindia,news,13428,p,0.html
  3. Marketing[ Go to top ]

    Funny to see Gosling on that page right next to Richard Stallman. I remember reading a few years ago RMS ripping Sun pretty good for not having open sourced Java already, and Gosling saying he thought RMS was a lunatic, and he saw no need to OS Java, as all the source was out there already and Sun were pretty good stewards. And now RMS basically hasn't changed his tune, and there's Gosling, right next to RMS, talking about how magnificent OS Java is. Funny.
  4. Re: Marketing[ Go to top ]

    Funny to see Gosling on that page right next to Richard Stallman.
    Well, Gosling and Stallman has had controversies before as well, remember emacs?
  5. Re: Sun relicenses Java under GPL[ Go to top ]

    Java is not open sourced because no one like the Java to be open sourced and it can not be open sourced because it is specs. it is sun implementation that goes under GPL from 2007 or what ever. hapily JCP will control Java in the future and it is the good news here.
  6. Can we say that "Java" get GPLed now? No, what's get GPLed is SUN's Java Implementation.
  7. No, what's get GPLed is SUN's Java Implementation.
    And not even that. It's just future versions of Java. Java 5 isnt open source.
  8. Congrats to sun[ Go to top ]

    hi there, This is a great moment for the java community. I hope that sun will be able to continue improving java. Now that it is GPL, I hope that Richard Stallman will be a happy man. The world's most popular language has GPL!! I hope that will make it easier for the linux/unix desktop community to actively consider java for its use and that sun will actively work with this community to let java be more useful. It would be nice to know if sun will have a project with Mozilla to have a version of java for the browser. SUN : pls. make it easier for the average C++ developer to be able to build java -- so that we can learn/debug/tune java. Thank you. BR, ~A
  9. Re: Congrats to sun[ Go to top ]

    What will happen to GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java)? I suppose it could integrate with Java now that it is GPLed. More importantly, no need for the separate work on the Java library. Cool. Yeah, RMS will be very happy.
  10. Harmony[ Go to top ]

    What will happen to GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java)? I suppose it could integrate with Java now that it is GPLed.
    I think a more interesting question is what's going to happen to the Harmony project. I don't follow their mailinglist, but tried to browse the archive. Doesn't seem like they are discussing this at all.
  11. Re: Harmony[ Go to top ]

    What will happen to GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java)? I suppose it could integrate with Java now that it is GPLed.
    I think a more interesting question is what's going to happen to the Harmony project. I don't follow their mailinglist, but tried to browse the archive. Doesn't seem like they are discussing this at all.
    I don't think Harmony will really be affected. They want the ASL, not the GPL.
  12. Re: Harmony[ Go to top ]

    What will happen to GCJ (GNU Compiler for Java)? I suppose it could integrate with Java now that it is GPLed.
    I think a more interesting question is what's going to happen to the Harmony project. I don't follow their mailinglist, but tried to browse the archive. Doesn't seem like they are discussing this at all.
    I don't think Harmony will really be affected. They want the ASL, not the GPL.
    We did discuss it as it's an interesting development for open source Java, and I think I can safely say the general sentiment is that we welcome it - more open soure java is good. As I've said to others, I think that this really won't change the day-to-day life of Harmony. Open source is just as much (maybe more) about community and governance than it is about licensing. Licensing is important, but not the only thing. Apache and Sun have always had different community and governance models, and that continues with this announcement. They didn't "do it the Apache Way" or do it the "Eclipse Way" - they are doing it the "Sun Way", which is entirely appropriate as it's their IP to do with as they wish. In Harmony, still have our classlibrary to finish (we're about 95% there for Java 5), we have our virtual machine to finish (it's running well now, respectably fast, and stabilizing day by day), and our tools and package and docs and.... :) So there's lots to do. We're making great progress in our community too - we recently did graduate from the Apache Incubator, so we're a top-level project now. Come see how we're doing, and help us if you're interested :) geir
  13. When did quality take a back seat?[ Go to top ]

    Open source is just as much (maybe more) about community and governance than it is about licensing.
    Satisfying the needs of your user base should never take a back seat to governance and the whims of your contributors (what Geir means by "commmunity"). IMO, an OSS project more concerned about "the means justifies the end" is a project in trouble. BTW, I'm glad Sun chose to do it the "Sun Way" and not any other way. This means we'll still continue to get a JVM thats focused on quality and compatibility. We'll still get a steward that's more concerned about making end users happy rather than a "governing body". Because, in the end, happy users are much better for business than a happy governed "community". Bill
  14. Open source is just as much (maybe more) about community and governance than it is about licensing.


    Satisfying the needs of your user base should never take a back seat to governance and the whims of your contributors (what Geir means by "commmunity"). IMO, an OSS project more concerned about "the means justifies the end" is a project in trouble.

    BTW, I'm glad Sun chose to do it the "Sun Way" and not any other way. This means we'll still continue to get a JVM thats focused on quality and compatibility. We'll still get a steward that's more concerned about making end users happy rather than a "governing body". Because, in the end, happy users are much better for business than a happy governed "community".

    Bill
    I will note that Sun is now focused on the "governing body". :) geir
  15. Re: Harmony[ Go to top ]

    I don't think Harmony will really be affected. They want the ASL, not the GPL.
    I see the that ASL would have its usage, but won't this move by Sun make the Harmony project irrelevant?
  16. Re: Harmony[ Go to top ]

    I don't think Harmony will really be affected. They want the ASL, not the GPL.
    I see the that ASL would have its usage, but won't this move by Sun make the Harmony project irrelevant?
    Well, Geir can answer this far better than I, but I don't think so. ASL is more appropriate for actual forks of the JVM, where the GPL will prevent forks from being able to corrupt the platform. I don't say that to say the ASL is more harmful; it's just that the ASL doesn't take such a rabid approach to defending its turf. From Sun's perspective, the GPL is probably "safer" -- note quotes - for Java, long term.
  17. Re: Harmony[ Go to top ]

    ASL is more appropriate for actual forks of the JVM
    But we have already had several JVM implementation - without used the "base JVM" as a starting point. Personally I think it's a good thing if the classlibrary doesn't get forked - which ASL would open up for. I use several JVM implementations today and this has never been an issue for me. Personally I have problems seeing the usage of an ASL based Java implementation. I certainly doesn't solve any of my issues now that Java SE is GPL'ed.
  18. Re: Harmony[ Go to top ]

    I see the that ASL would have its usage, but won't this move by Sun make the Harmony project irrelevant?
    Why ? Is only one OS, one browser etc. the open source way ? No ! More than one (open source) implementation is good.
  19. Re: Harmony[ Go to top ]

    More than one (open source) implementation is good.
    More than one political party is good, but you won't see Ralph Nader winning anytime soon.
  20. Re: Harmony[ Go to top ]

    More than one (open source) implementation is good.

    More than one political party is good, but you won't see Ralph Nader winning anytime soon.
    And that "leenooks" thing will never catch on either. We already have Unix. Several of them, in fact... geir
  21. gjc[ Go to top ]

    not sure what will happen to it, but doesn't releasing this under the gpl obviate the need for it? i'm sure the developers on the gjc can take their experience in the direction of improving the jdk; personally, I always disable it and dload the sun jdk anyway, so it doesn't really impact me personally in anyway. i think what's interesting is that the distros out there can now easily include the parts that did not agree with their licenses initially. that takes away one more step i have to do perform to get a dev environment properly setup on a new machine cheers, -- eokyere :)
  22. Am I too cynical or is it because Sun decided they will not go on funding Java platform development anymore so they try and make the "community" do the dirty job for them? After all, they still want to control the spec.
  23. Re: Sun relicenses Java under GPL[ Go to top ]

    Hi all, Can someone tell me who is this gonna help ? I do not see how this is going to change my life as an developer or entreprise architect.. ideas welcome. Stephan
  24. Hi all,
    Can someone tell me who is this gonna help ? I do not see how this is going to change my life as an developer or entreprise architect.. ideas welcome.

    Stephan
    Actually, "Satisfying Stephan's hopes and dreams" is next on their list. Be patient. More eyes and more ideas are better. Look at Sun's Java bug list and maybe you'll understand. For instance, there still isn't a 64-bit x86 Java plugin. Countless improvements can be made, and more people studying the code can provide that.
  25. linux distributions[ Go to top ]

    The most important part will be the Linux distributions will be able to bundle the Sun VM.
  26. Re: Sun relicenses Java under GPL[ Go to top ]

    Hi all,
    Can someone tell me who is this gonna help ?
    It means that all those developers who couldn't be bothered to contribute to the GPL'd kaffe.org java implementation can now also not bother to contribute to the GPL'd Sun java implementation... It's always surprised me the amount of fuss people made about "Sun should open source java" when there was an existing open source java project that would have been more than grateful for their help and contributions. But of course it's much easier to complain than to write code, isn't it? I never noticed those same people shouting that the IBM or jrockit JVMs should be made open source. So why were Sun singled out as a special case? The language itself and APIs were already open, well, at least so far as you consider the JCP to be open that is. Still, it was Sun's choice and they've done it now, so good luck to them. I suspect the only real difference it will make to the JVM is there's no longer any excuse for Debian not to include it :-)
  27. Re: Sun relicenses Java under GPL[ Go to top ]

    Hi all,
    Can someone tell me who is this gonna help ?


    It means that all those developers who couldn't be bothered to contribute to the GPL'd kaffe.org java implementation can now also not bother to contribute to the GPL'd Sun java implementation...
    No, it means that those of us who didn't want to bother to contribute to an immature, incompete JDK can now contribute to a mature, well-maintained, complete JDK.
  28. Andrew Stevens :
    The language itself and APIs were already open, well, at least so far as you consider the JCP to be open that is.

    Still, it was Sun's choice and they've done it now, so good luck to them. I suspect the only real difference it will make to the JVM is there's no longer any excuse for Debian not to include it :-)
    Yes - the JCP allows independent open source implementations (that's what Apache fought for in 2003, not that they had to OSS-ed their code - that was Sun's choice to make - it's their IP.) And yes, I think that the most visible effect of this will be much greater distribution of Java as a first class citizen on the Linux platform, which is a Good Thing. geir
  29. Why not relicense TCKs ?[ Go to top ]

    All well and good open sourcing SUN's JDK/JVM implementations but what about open sourcing the various TCKs of the JSRs so that 1. Groups interested in implementing technologies can check themselves how well they are doing without having to sign NDAs to get their hands on the TCK 2. Companies can actually check claims made by implementors that their implementations in fact do pass the respective TCK. Maybe another 8 years for that step ?
  30. So....[ Go to top ]

    What would really change my life is if I can distribute tools.jar. Is this going to be possible now?
  31. Let me restate[ Go to top ]

    Sorry, my last question didnt make sense. What I am really trying to ask is this: Am I allowed to redistribute the he javac.jar file generated from the compiler source in a project that is Apache 2 license? Reading license docs gives me a headache (seriously) and I can't figure it out.
  32. Well ... I, for one, ...[ Go to top ]

    Well ... I, for one, welcome our new long-haired hippy overlords
  33. Irrelevant[ Go to top ]

    I think for all practical purposes, the licensing is totally irrelevant. Java thrives because of the richness of the API, not because its core is open source. Source code for most of the relevant parts of the API has been available for a long time. There is ZERO added value in GPLing something that is already free, or as the CEO of Sun, John Schwartz, put it rightly: People use free Software, because IT IS FREE. Wake up guys...
  34. Linking[ Go to top ]

    Notice that only the class libraries will be under the GPL + linking exception. The runtime and the compiler are all under straight GPL v2. So basically unless Sun wants to update the license, you can't embed the runtime or the compiler in your app without releasing *your* app under a GPL-compatible license. I don't know why they just don't license everything under GPL + linking exception. But at least the GPL + linking exception is fundamentally a lot more clear than say LGPL....that's if the GPL was actually clear and there was some legal precedent. And to clear up some common confusion, just because you link to straight GPL code, doesn't mean your code has to be GPL. It just has to be GPL compatible. I'm sure the fundies are happy about this, but I don't think it really changes anything. Sun will still want joint copyright assignment, and any impact that this would have had would have happened years ago.
  35. GPL+E[ Go to top ]

    I have to think Sun needs to socialize this heavily as many companies or non-technical IT managers are fearful of the "viral" GPL. Sun needs to play up the GPL with classpath exception aspect. This is not your hippy dad's GPL. Gotta think Micosoft will play on the FUD pretty fast. I'd call it GPL+E or "Duke without kooties."
  36. Re: GPL+E [Viral JAVA???][ Go to top ]

    Hi all, Forgive my ignorance, but how does the relicensing not imply that any java software must be released under GPL? If I use any java.lang classes, they are under GPL, and if I want to redistribute my program, does it have to be GPL compatible??? I dont understand the implications. Thanks. Federico Vela.
  37. Re: GPL+E [Viral JAVA???][ Go to top ]

    Hi all,

    Forgive my ignorance, but how does the relicensing not imply that any java software must be released under GPL?

    If I use any java.lang classes, they are under GPL, and if I want to redistribute my program, does it have to be GPL compatible???

    I dont understand the implications.

    Thanks.

    Federico Vela.
    No. Just because the VM + Classlib is GPL doesn't mean your code has to be. Also, Sun is "multi-licensing". The source (and presumably binaries) will be available under GPLv2 and GPLv2 + exception. However, you'll still be able to get the binaries under the current licensing under which they are currently available, and further, they'll still be licensing the source under other commercial licensing arrangements like they do now. geir
  38. GPL vs LGPL[ Go to top ]

    Geir, thank you for your reply.
    No. Just because the VM + Classlib is GPL doesn't mean your code has to be.
    geir
    I thought that was exactly what the GPL required. I htough if you link/use/call GPL licenced code you must release your own code in GPL, and this is the key spot where GPL was different from LGPL. Anyone care to clarify my confusion? Thank you FV.
  39. Re: GPL vs LGPL[ Go to top ]

    Geir, thank you for your reply.

    No. Just because the VM + Classlib is GPL doesn't mean your code has to be.
    geir


    I thought that was exactly what the GPL required. I htough if you link/use/call GPL licenced code you must release your own code in GPL, and this is the key spot where GPL was different from LGPL.

    Anyone care to clarify my confusion?

    Thank you

    FV.
    SE is being released as GPLv2 + *Exceptions* *not* plain GPL. This license is basically the same as LGPL except the wording is a bit clearer.
  40. Re: GPL vs LGPL[ Go to top ]

    SE is being released as GPLv2 + *Exceptions* *not* plain GPL. This license is basically the same as LGPL except the wording is a bit clearer.
    AHHHHH!!!! Wonderful! I can rest at ease now ;-) Thanks Bill!
  41. Re: GPL vs LGPL[ Go to top ]

    SE is being released as GPLv2 + *Exceptions* *not* plain GPL. This license is basically the same as LGPL except the wording is a bit clearer.

    AHHHHH!!!! Wonderful! I can rest at ease now ;-)

    Thanks Bill!
    Except, as of right now, the VM and the compiler are plain GPL v2. Goto the project page and read the top-level license of the VM
  42. Congratulations to SUN[ Go to top ]

    Congratulations to the team at SUN that made this possible, that is a great day for Java and Free Software. Cheers, Sacha P.S.: I've posted additional comments on a blog entry: http://jboss.org/jbossBlog/blog/slabourey/2006/11/13/FOSS+Java%2C+Finally%21.txt ===== JBoss, a Division or Red Hat.
  43. Re: Sun relicenses Java under GPL[ Go to top ]

    I was browsing through various websites, blogs etc. to read people's comments on this matter and I'm a little surprised by all those "how does this help" thoughts. I mean, how does this NOT help? In my understanding, this could only cause some good - community efforts, developers collaborating, submitting patches, brainstorming ideas etc. And even if these things won't happen at the extent I'm hoping for, so what? Sun's Java will then still be developed by Sun, even without help. It's a great day and I'm looking forward to see where it leads us a year or two from now.
  44. WSJ[ Go to top ]

    I admit I am a little slow on the uptake, as I have never installed Linux, but I find it very confusing as to what this is supposed to do for Sun's business. All the press that JS gets about being a software guy, and this seems to have very little impact on the overall marketability of the Java software that Sun sells. In fact, it seems to be a departure from a previously stated goal of making Glassfish the best JEE server. Why is this? Well, it again takes a position that is favorable with the press and not with the analysts, at least those that measure financials. There is not much that can be said about re-distribution under a new license that does not put everyone asleep. I guess they chose the right license, but Sun won't use it anyway. They'll commercialize everything anyway, and Glassfish will still be only valuable insofar as it is the SJSAS 9.x. Today's announcement is another software sleeper for those who wait for Sun to do the right thing, and place Clustra functionality on the back-end of its Application Platform, and start selling it instead of WebLogic. JBoss and F/OSS industry celebrate while BEA and Oracle continue to survive on inferior products and inferior models, and Sun gets 3rd page coverage in WSJ all for what? It just doesn't seem to be a worthwhile announcement if not coupled with a plan to commercialize what has been opened... douglas dooley http://douglasdooley.blogspot.com/