9 ms·

An update on JavaOne

129 points by mattyb 16y ago

wicknicks 16y ago
This is really not nice for Open Source. I can understand that Oracle wants to make money, but they are really creating big barriers for corporations using Java. The lawsuit is marking the start of Java's decline. Its a matter of time before something replaces it.
- swannodette 16y ago
  While I see the Google vs. Oracle Java struggle getting ugly, I don't think this marks the decline of Java at all. Most corporations invested in Java are not building their own version of Java- do they really care how this goes down? In addition what language is in any position to replace Java?
  - someone_here 16y ago
    what language is in any position to replace Java? Previously, it was any new implementation of the VM...
    - swannodette 16y ago
      Sadly a virtual machine by itself just isn't good enough anymore. The maturity and performance of the JVM shows. That kind of infrastructures takes oh ... about 20 years to build. Until the current crop of JVM based languages showed up my interest in the Java the language waned. But now that you can use your language of choice and still tap into JVM libraries, perf and the high quality profiling tools, the JVM is compelling again. Also experience stories like this, http://blog.urbanairship.com/blog/tag/java/ http://blog.urbanairship.com/blog/tag/java/, show that as great as Python and Ruby are for building websites, surprise, surprise, they don't have the performance for the real-time web.
      - amix 16y ago
        Java isn't really that good fit for real-time web applications as it usually eats a lot memory - especially if you compare it to C/C++ or node.js (V8). A while ago I rewrote a system from Java (that used JBoss Netty) to node.js. The node.js solution used about 10x less memory. And memory is a crucial element of scaling real-time web applications.
        swannodette 16y ago
        What you mean is that your real-time application was largely memory bound - other apps might require that sanely and rapidly coordinating access to shared state might be more critical than the cost of memory- with a collaborative whiteboard or the backend of a MMORPG you're probably going to run into difficulties with C/C++ and Node.js might very well be useless. There are domains where shared nothing just doesn't work.
  - wicknicks 16y ago
    Maybe there is no language which will immediately replace Java, but as noodle pointed out, its going to stagnate. Like what happened to C. C is being used in many companies, because they have so much stuff already written in it and cannot afford a re-write. But the community will slowly shift to other languages. We can already see that in terms of Scala/Clojure - both very promising languages.
    - strlen 16y ago
      Scala and Clojure run on the JVM. There's very little to Java as far as syntax goes, it's basically C++ without MI, operator overloading or real templates. The real value is in the runtime: the standard library, the concurrency model, the virtual machine. That part is threatened by the litigation as well. Building your own competing JVM can, as this suit demonstrated, get you sued too.
- noodle 16y ago
  > Its a matter of time before something replaces it. replaces it for new development, perhaps. java itself will probably never go away now, though, lawsuit or not. its footprint is just too huge now. at worst, it'll just stagnate.
- KeithMajhor 16y ago
  Is Microsoft's runtime any more open? I've been more and more impressed with Mono lately. Does it potentially face the same issues Java is facing now?
  - icey 16y ago
    This may answer some of your questions: http://www.mono-project.com/MonoConcerns http://www.mono-project.com/MonoConcerns
  - sprout 16y ago
    Actually, it faces even bigger issues, since you essentially have to be using a version of Mono that is paid for. Java at least has a solid grant of patents so long as you're using the GPL version. Microsoft has intentionally worded their licenses to allow them to sue anyone who isn't paying for their software in the future. In a certain sense, this is the intent of the GPL rearing its ugly head. When Oracle says Android violates their copyright, it seems like what they mean is they've taken GPL code (the Java standard) and re-implemented it under a different license. Though I'm in no way deep in enough to say that authoritatively, and like the entire suit the rationale seems questionable to say the least. A potential Microsoft suit looks to be allowed by the Mono licensing.
    - viraptor 16y ago
      I'm not sure what you're referring to in a couple of places: > since you essentially have to be using a version of Mono that is paid for What do you mean? The MS-Novel patent deal was done long time ago. Now, there is a better document in place: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx - both C# and CLI are covered and no implementation is pointed at. It stops them from suing for "making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation" - as long as it's compliant with specs. Stress is on "any implementation" here. That document doesn't mention any specific party and doesn't limit the promise to any specific group as far as I can see. > Microsoft has intentionally worded their licenses to allow them to sue anyone who isn't paying for their software in the future. [citation needed]
- protomyth 16y ago
  What's the barrier? Oracle has business relationships with most companies using Java and this does not affect OpenJDK, IBM, or any other licensee.
pvg 16y ago
FTA: Oracle’s recent lawsuit against Google and open source I wish the Google people would stop saying that. Oracle didn't sue open source. That doesn't even make sense, you can't sue open source any more than you can sue Santa. Beside the fact that the open-sourced Java implementations are explicitly unaffected by this lawsuit.
- davidw 16y ago
  Android uses a lot of Apache Harmony.
  - pvg 16y ago
    The class library, not the VM. And, as importantly, Oracle hasn't sued the Apache Foundation.
    - davidw 16y ago
      Why would they? There's no money there. Just wait until someone else goes and uses it for something and makes some money. Then sue the people with the money.
      - andybak 16y ago
        The patents are all VM related rather than related to the library.
        davidw 16y ago
        How general are they? Harmony has a VM as well.
        masklinn 16y ago
        I understand that Harmony's VM is a JVM, Dalvik is a circumvention of Sun's J2ME, which is a different issue (I believe Sun tried to protect J2ME far more strongly than the regular JVM, it's licensed differently and stuff)
adharmad 16y ago
Why is Oracle suing Google not ok but Sun suing Microsoft for essentially the same reason ok?
- dminor 16y ago
  Sun/Microsoft was a breach of contract lawsuit. Oracle/Google is a patent lawsuit.
  - wmf 16y ago
    Fundamentally, both lawsuits appear to be about embrace-and-extend.
protomyth 16y ago
"Oracle’s recent lawsuit against Google and open source" The lawsuit is against Google, not the OpenJDK. It seems disingenuous to keep linking Google's situation with Open Source in general. Google isn't using the OpenJDK. Google didn't want to spend the money and now has to deal with that decision. A simple "We are not going to a conference sponsored by someone suing us" would be good enough. Adobe and Google must have sent their people to the same blog training program.
- ergo98 16y ago
  If you attack an open-source project (which the pertinent parts are) with general software patents, how is that not an attack on open source? What Oracle is doing is absolutely no different than what SCO was engaged in. Note that Oracle's general patents on rudimentary VM and runtime characteristics could be applied against any number of non-Java targets. There just aren't many with the pockets as deep as Google.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > What Oracle is doing is absolutely no different than what SCO was engaged in. SCO asserted ownership of code they didn't own and licenses they didn't have. How is that even remotely similar?
    - ergo98 16y ago
      Both are extorting open source projects based upon dubious claims. In the SCO case the claim was that Linux consciously or unconsciously borrowed from SCO's purported property because there are superficial similarities. In this case, Oracle is claiming that Android borrowed from their newly gained property because there are superficial similarities to some vague patents which virtually any modern VM runtime runs afoul of. I think the similarity is overwhelmingly obvious, so demanding that I prove that it is "remotely" similar is pretty aggressive and uncalled for.
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > Google didn't want to spend the money and now has to deal with that decision. It's not that they didn't want to pay, they wanted to make a fully open source mobile OS. Going with OpenJDK would have forced them to make Android GPL which would have been a no-no for carriers and going with Sun's licensed JVM would have made Android not open source. So Google had to go with their own VM if they wanted to have an open source mobile OS based on Java.
peterlind 16y ago
How hard would it be for Google to fork OpenJDK and release Guava 7 instead (with all the niceties we're waiting for). If they made it open they probably could get a lot of people to switch over.
- danieldk 16y ago
  That would not really solve the problem. The Sun/Oracle patent grant only extends to JDKs that conform to the specification, and pass all tests in the test suite. That is, if you can license the test suite (see Apache Harmony). http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#The_Java_Language_Specification_grant http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#The_Java_Language_...
  - wmf 16y ago
    Another section of that same page gives a different interpretation: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#OpenJDK:_the_GPLv2_Java_from_Oracle http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#OpenJDK:_the_GPLv2... OpenJDK apparently comes with its own patent grant which should cover any derivatives, compatible or not.
    - danieldk 16y ago
      It is implicit. IANAL, but it is supposedly very weak (see e.g. Novell-Microsoft deal). E.g. the European Commission, after analysis, thinks it does not protect forks. For a good explanation, see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1760290&cid=33311098 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1760290&cid=333... FSF has been urging people to use GPLv3 because it has an explicit patent grant (amongst other reasons).
    - peterlind 16y ago
      Yeah, these lines look great: "OpenJDK is has been distributed by Oracle under GPLv2.[1] GPLv2 includes two implicit patent licences, so users of OpenJDK should be safe, and modified versions of OpenJDK should also be safe (even if they're heavily modified). The protections in the GPL are unconditional. The software doesn't have to comply with any specifications in order to benefit from these protections."

129 points by mattyb 16y ago

This is really not nice for Open Source. I can understand that Oracle wants to make money, but they are really creating big barriers for corporations using Java. The lawsuit is marking the start of Java's decline. Its a matter of time before something replaces it.

swannodette 16y ago
While I see the Google vs. Oracle Java struggle getting ugly, I don't think this marks the decline of Java at all. Most corporations invested in Java are not building their own version of Java- do they really care how this goes down? In addition what language is in any position to replace Java?
- someone_here 16y ago
  what language is in any position to replace Java? Previously, it was any new implementation of the VM...
  - swannodette 16y ago
    Sadly a virtual machine by itself just isn't good enough anymore. The maturity and performance of the JVM shows. That kind of infrastructures takes oh ... about 20 years to build. Until the current crop of JVM based languages showed up my interest in the Java the language waned. But now that you can use your language of choice and still tap into JVM libraries, perf and the high quality profiling tools, the JVM is compelling again. Also experience stories like this, http://blog.urbanairship.com/blog/tag/java/ http://blog.urbanairship.com/blog/tag/java/, show that as great as Python and Ruby are for building websites, surprise, surprise, they don't have the performance for the real-time web.
    - amix 16y ago
      Java isn't really that good fit for real-time web applications as it usually eats a lot memory - especially if you compare it to C/C++ or node.js (V8). A while ago I rewrote a system from Java (that used JBoss Netty) to node.js. The node.js solution used about 10x less memory. And memory is a crucial element of scaling real-time web applications.
      - swannodette 16y ago
        What you mean is that your real-time application was largely memory bound - other apps might require that sanely and rapidly coordinating access to shared state might be more critical than the cost of memory- with a collaborative whiteboard or the backend of a MMORPG you're probably going to run into difficulties with C/C++ and Node.js might very well be useless. There are domains where shared nothing just doesn't work.
- wicknicks 16y ago
  Maybe there is no language which will immediately replace Java, but as noodle pointed out, its going to stagnate. Like what happened to C. C is being used in many companies, because they have so much stuff already written in it and cannot afford a re-write. But the community will slowly shift to other languages. We can already see that in terms of Scala/Clojure - both very promising languages.
  - strlen 16y ago
    Scala and Clojure run on the JVM. There's very little to Java as far as syntax goes, it's basically C++ without MI, operator overloading or real templates. The real value is in the runtime: the standard library, the concurrency model, the virtual machine. That part is threatened by the litigation as well. Building your own competing JVM can, as this suit demonstrated, get you sued too.
noodle 16y ago
> Its a matter of time before something replaces it. replaces it for new development, perhaps. java itself will probably never go away now, though, lawsuit or not. its footprint is just too huge now. at worst, it'll just stagnate.
KeithMajhor 16y ago
Is Microsoft's runtime any more open? I've been more and more impressed with Mono lately. Does it potentially face the same issues Java is facing now?
- icey 16y ago
  This may answer some of your questions: http://www.mono-project.com/MonoConcerns http://www.mono-project.com/MonoConcerns
- sprout 16y ago
  Actually, it faces even bigger issues, since you essentially have to be using a version of Mono that is paid for. Java at least has a solid grant of patents so long as you're using the GPL version. Microsoft has intentionally worded their licenses to allow them to sue anyone who isn't paying for their software in the future. In a certain sense, this is the intent of the GPL rearing its ugly head. When Oracle says Android violates their copyright, it seems like what they mean is they've taken GPL code (the Java standard) and re-implemented it under a different license. Though I'm in no way deep in enough to say that authoritatively, and like the entire suit the rationale seems questionable to say the least. A potential Microsoft suit looks to be allowed by the Mono licensing.
  - viraptor 16y ago
    I'm not sure what you're referring to in a couple of places: > since you essentially have to be using a version of Mono that is paid for What do you mean? The MS-Novel patent deal was done long time ago. Now, there is a better document in place: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx - both C# and CLI are covered and no implementation is pointed at. It stops them from suing for "making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation" - as long as it's compliant with specs. Stress is on "any implementation" here. That document doesn't mention any specific party and doesn't limit the promise to any specific group as far as I can see. > Microsoft has intentionally worded their licenses to allow them to sue anyone who isn't paying for their software in the future. [citation needed]
protomyth 16y ago
What's the barrier? Oracle has business relationships with most companies using Java and this does not affect OpenJDK, IBM, or any other licensee.

pvg 16y ago

FTA: Oracle’s recent lawsuit against Google and open source I wish the Google people would stop saying that. Oracle didn't sue open source. That doesn't even make sense, you can't sue open source any more than you can sue Santa. Beside the fact that the open-sourced Java implementations are explicitly unaffected by this lawsuit.

davidw 16y ago
Android uses a lot of Apache Harmony.
- pvg 16y ago
  The class library, not the VM. And, as importantly, Oracle hasn't sued the Apache Foundation.
  - davidw 16y ago
    Why would they? There's no money there. Just wait until someone else goes and uses it for something and makes some money. Then sue the people with the money.
    - andybak 16y ago
      The patents are all VM related rather than related to the library.
      - davidw 16y ago
        How general are they? Harmony has a VM as well.
        masklinn 16y ago
        I understand that Harmony's VM is a JVM, Dalvik is a circumvention of Sun's J2ME, which is a different issue (I believe Sun tried to protect J2ME far more strongly than the regular JVM, it's licensed differently and stuff)

adharmad 16y ago

Why is Oracle suing Google not ok but Sun suing Microsoft for essentially the same reason ok?

dminor 16y ago
Sun/Microsoft was a breach of contract lawsuit. Oracle/Google is a patent lawsuit.
- wmf 16y ago
  Fundamentally, both lawsuits appear to be about embrace-and-extend.

protomyth 16y ago

"Oracle’s recent lawsuit against Google and open source" The lawsuit is against Google, not the OpenJDK. It seems disingenuous to keep linking Google's situation with Open Source in general. Google isn't using the OpenJDK. Google didn't want to spend the money and now has to deal with that decision. A simple "We are not going to a conference sponsored by someone suing us" would be good enough. Adobe and Google must have sent their people to the same blog training program.

ergo98 16y ago
If you attack an open-source project (which the pertinent parts are) with general software patents, how is that not an attack on open source? What Oracle is doing is absolutely no different than what SCO was engaged in. Note that Oracle's general patents on rudimentary VM and runtime characteristics could be applied against any number of non-Java targets. There just aren't many with the pockets as deep as Google.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > What Oracle is doing is absolutely no different than what SCO was engaged in. SCO asserted ownership of code they didn't own and licenses they didn't have. How is that even remotely similar?
  - ergo98 16y ago
    Both are extorting open source projects based upon dubious claims. In the SCO case the claim was that Linux consciously or unconsciously borrowed from SCO's purported property because there are superficial similarities. In this case, Oracle is claiming that Android borrowed from their newly gained property because there are superficial similarities to some vague patents which virtually any modern VM runtime runs afoul of. I think the similarity is overwhelmingly obvious, so demanding that I prove that it is "remotely" similar is pretty aggressive and uncalled for.
patrickaljord 16y ago
> Google didn't want to spend the money and now has to deal with that decision. It's not that they didn't want to pay, they wanted to make a fully open source mobile OS. Going with OpenJDK would have forced them to make Android GPL which would have been a no-no for carriers and going with Sun's licensed JVM would have made Android not open source. So Google had to go with their own VM if they wanted to have an open source mobile OS based on Java.

peterlind 16y ago

How hard would it be for Google to fork OpenJDK and release Guava 7 instead (with all the niceties we're waiting for). If they made it open they probably could get a lot of people to switch over.

danieldk 16y ago
That would not really solve the problem. The Sun/Oracle patent grant only extends to JDKs that conform to the specification, and pass all tests in the test suite. That is, if you can license the test suite (see Apache Harmony). http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#The_Java_Language_Specification_grant http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#The_Java_Language_...
- wmf 16y ago
  Another section of that same page gives a different interpretation: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#OpenJDK:_the_GPLv2_Java_from_Oracle http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#OpenJDK:_the_GPLv2... OpenJDK apparently comes with its own patent grant which should cover any derivatives, compatible or not.
  - danieldk 16y ago
    It is implicit. IANAL, but it is supposedly very weak (see e.g. Novell-Microsoft deal). E.g. the European Commission, after analysis, thinks it does not protect forks. For a good explanation, see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1760290&cid=33311098 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1760290&cid=333... FSF has been urging people to use GPLv3 because it has an explicit patent grant (amongst other reasons).
  - peterlind 16y ago
    Yeah, these lines look great: "OpenJDK is has been distributed by Oracle under GPLv2.[1] GPLv2 includes two implicit patent licences, so users of OpenJDK should be safe, and modified versions of OpenJDK should also be safe (even if they're heavily modified). The protections in the GPL are unconditional. The software doesn't have to comply with any specifications in order to benefit from these protections."