4 ms·

From the actual Oracle statement, and left out of the linked post: Earlier this week, by an overwhelming majority, the Java Executive Committee voted to move J

by jfager 16y ago

From the actual Oracle statement, and left out of the linked post: Earlier this week, by an overwhelming majority, the Java Executive Committee voted to move Java forward by formally initiating work on both Java SE 7 and SE 8 based on their technical merits. Apache voted against initiating technical committee work on both SE 7 and SE 8, effectively voting against moving Java forward. So overall, just an amazingly sincere request from Oracle, wholly indicative of a good faith effort to work this out with Apache. [Edit: </sarcasm>] http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/2010/12/oracle_response_to_apache_departure_from_jcp.html http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/2010/12/oracle_response_to_ap...

asolove 16y ago
I disagree with the characterization "amazingly sincere." Oracle dangled the technical merits of the proposals as a carrot, but paired them with the stick of non-open licensing requirements.
- jfager 16y ago
  I was being sarcastic.
  - chaostheory 16y ago
    I couldn't tell either
brown9-2 16y ago
Interesting that they don't mention Google's vote "no". The official comments of each party in the JCP on this vote are pretty interesting, even a large number of the "yes" votes clarify that they are voting only on the technical merits and they have deep concerns with the licensing. http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5111 http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5111
- bruceboughton 16y ago
  The Credit Suisse comments are particularly interesting: On 2010-12-06 Credit Suisse voted Yes with the following comment: Credit Suisse's vote is purely on the technical content. We strongly demand open standards and an active community around Java as we selected Java SE & EE as primary pillars for our application development (as many others in the industry do). The current battle around licensing term, however, reveals that Java never actually was an open standard. FOU restrictions clearly discriminate open source implementations and prevent competition, and with that, innovation in that space. While Java had a considerable head start, it lost a lot of momentum over the last years. Fragmentation (or a fork) of the language and its platforms are clearly not desired. But today, customers are already facing competing models for developing enterprise applications (e.g., Spring, OSGi, Java EE). The main problem, in our view, is the lack of modularization, clear delineation of Java IPs owned by Oracle and truly open standard extensions, and the ignorance of developments outside of the JCP (even though OSGi has a JCP blessing). The OpenJDK framework is not sufficient for all aspects of the language. Java must be kept interesting for researchers and universities: researchers not only contribute to the standards (e.g., Doug Lea for concurrency or Michael Ernst for type annotations) but also decide on the languages (and paradigms) that are taught at universities -- and this in the end determines the knowledge and mindset we acquire with our software engineers. While we recognize Oracle’s intellectual properties around Java, we strongly encourage Oracle to re-think its current position around licensing terms. We strongly support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP.
  - 6ren 16y ago
    > we selected Java SE & EE as primary pillars for our application development (as many others in the industry do) Sadly, this is exactly Oracle's motivation.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Can anyone explain clearly why OpenJDK is not enough?
    - wmf 16y ago
      OpenJDK is enough for 99% of people. The remaining objections are philosophical and strategic: To count as a true bona-fide 100% open standard, you should be able to implement Java from scratch (without using any OpenJDK code) using any license you want and get it certified. Also, the ASF is trying to build a completely ASL-licensed stack, either because of NIH or because it benefits IBM and Intel in some way.

by jfager 16y ago

asolove 16y ago

I disagree with the characterization "amazingly sincere." Oracle dangled the technical merits of the proposals as a carrot, but paired them with the stick of non-open licensing requirements.

jfager 16y ago
I was being sarcastic.
- chaostheory 16y ago
  I couldn't tell either

brown9-2 16y ago

Interesting that they don't mention Google's vote "no". The official comments of each party in the JCP on this vote are pretty interesting, even a large number of the "yes" votes clarify that they are voting only on the technical merits and they have deep concerns with the licensing. http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5111 http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5111

bruceboughton 16y ago
The Credit Suisse comments are particularly interesting: On 2010-12-06 Credit Suisse voted Yes with the following comment: Credit Suisse's vote is purely on the technical content. We strongly demand open standards and an active community around Java as we selected Java SE & EE as primary pillars for our application development (as many others in the industry do). The current battle around licensing term, however, reveals that Java never actually was an open standard. FOU restrictions clearly discriminate open source implementations and prevent competition, and with that, innovation in that space. While Java had a considerable head start, it lost a lot of momentum over the last years. Fragmentation (or a fork) of the language and its platforms are clearly not desired. But today, customers are already facing competing models for developing enterprise applications (e.g., Spring, OSGi, Java EE). The main problem, in our view, is the lack of modularization, clear delineation of Java IPs owned by Oracle and truly open standard extensions, and the ignorance of developments outside of the JCP (even though OSGi has a JCP blessing). The OpenJDK framework is not sufficient for all aspects of the language. Java must be kept interesting for researchers and universities: researchers not only contribute to the standards (e.g., Doug Lea for concurrency or Michael Ernst for type annotations) but also decide on the languages (and paradigms) that are taught at universities -- and this in the end determines the knowledge and mindset we acquire with our software engineers. While we recognize Oracle’s intellectual properties around Java, we strongly encourage Oracle to re-think its current position around licensing terms. We strongly support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP.
- 6ren 16y ago
  > we selected Java SE & EE as primary pillars for our application development (as many others in the industry do) Sadly, this is exactly Oracle's motivation.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Can anyone explain clearly why OpenJDK is not enough?
  - wmf 16y ago
    OpenJDK is enough for 99% of people. The remaining objections are philosophical and strategic: To count as a true bona-fide 100% open standard, you should be able to implement Java from scratch (without using any OpenJDK code) using any license you want and get it certified. Also, the ASF is trying to build a completely ASL-licensed stack, either because of NIH or because it benefits IBM and Intel in some way.