
Statement by the ASF Board on our participation in the Java Community Process - olefoo
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/statement_by_the_asf_board1
======
pquerna
I think this is a huge statement from the ASF, specifically:

    
    
      The ASF will terminate its relationship with the
      JCP if our rights as implementers of Java 
      specifications are not upheld by the JCP Executive 
      Committee to the limits of the EC's ability. The 
      lack of active, strong and clear enforcement of 
      those rights implies that the JSPA agreements are 
      worthless, confirming that JCP specifications are 
      nothing more than proprietary documentation.
    

Calling out Oracle on their previous statements that Java 7 will go forward on
their timeline no matter what -- it appears that the JCP really could end if
everyone's threats are called.

(disclaimer, asf member, not involved in this though)

~~~
drivingmenuts
I really have to wonder if Oracle even gives a damn anymore. They seem hell-
bent on making Java as proprietary as possible and alienating as many people
as possible.

~~~
jasonjei
Larry won't take ASF seriously, given how he has toyed with HP. Larry might
find it even comical or entertaining that some boys from ASF are threatening
to leave JCP.

------
olefoo
This puts a period to the age of Java as a vital language and puts it firmly
in the category of a legacy tool.

~~~
spokey
I haven't been active with Java for more than 5 years, and I haven't been
active in the ASF for longer than that so I may be missing some of the nuance
here, but isn't it possible maybe even probable that this is simply the point
where Java and/or the Java VM "forks" into Oracle's proprietary version
(likely to die on the vine) and one of more versions from some combination of
IBM, Apache, RedHat, Eclipse, etc.

It seems like there are a large number of Java developers, a large number of
organizations heavily invested in the Java stack, and a number of vendors with
both the capacity and potentially the motivation to serve those organizations.

I find it hard to imagine that if developers and organizations abandon
Oracle's Java in droves that no one will make an effort to fill that void.
(And fill it with something more "Java-like" than not, at least at the start.)

~~~
wtallis
What good is Java if there's no longer a spec to help ensure cross-platform
compatibility?

Also, there are major trademark, patent, and copyright issues that need to be
settled before anybody can safely fork Java and stop adhering to the spec.

~~~
Teckla
"Mostly compatible" (at the source code level) would be good enough for quite
a few applications. For example, take a look at a lot of the C and C++
applications out there, which use OS APIs that often vary widely. Despite
that, C and C++ applications are still written, and very popular.

~~~
space-monkey
The problem (as I understand it) is that without passing the TCK (which Apache
can't get without field-of-use restrictions), you don't get the patent license
required to safely run Java in a business environment. I don't think the line-
of-business app developers that have driven the bulk of Java usage over the
years can afford to risk getting sued by Oracle, so they can't really depend
on a non-licensed runtime.

~~~
spokey
I thought that went the other way: you need a patent license to author and/or
run the TCK. You can create a Java compatible VM (many have) but you can't run
the "official" compatibility test without Sun's, now Oracle's permission, and
there is some concern (at least at Apache) that you cannot easily create a
"cleanroom" implementation of that TCK. (Although I think that latter concern
is more social than legal--if I remember correctly conventional wisdom said
that there were too may Sun folks already involved with Java projects at
Apache to have any reasonable expectation that a cleanroom would remain
clean.)

------
squidsoup
Can anyone explain which rights under the JSPA the ASF are claiming Oracle has
not held up? The article doesn't appear to explain the specifics of their
complaint (or my reading comprehension is pants).

~~~
hrabago
Perhaps they are refering to 5.B of the JSPA, "License to Create Independent
Implementations". Under 5.F there is also a description of the licensing of
the RI and the TCK, but IANAL so I'm just guessing.

