
Apache declares war on Oracle over Java - chaostheory
http://www.itworld.com/legal/127051/apache-declares-war-oracle-over-java
======
makmanalp
I just _know_ that Stallman is doing an "I told you so" dance right about now.

~~~
melling
Lead, follow or get out of the way. Stallman hasn't offered a better solution
than Java. Java is a better choice than C or C++. Developers are simply more
productive in Java. Python, Ruby, etc don't currently offer nearly the level
of performance. I'm still waiting for the version of Emacs that's written
entirely in Scheme.

[edit] Funny, I got voted down. Hope you guys will volunteer to rip out the
Java from Open Office and rewrite it in C++.

~~~
wmf
I think RMS is now pro-Java since OpenJDK came out. Harmony is a tool of
capitalist oppression anyway.

~~~
melling
Stallman has his ideals, which is fine. However, if Java was never open
sourced, he would not be in favor of it. OpenOffice was largely written in C++
because they didn't want to use Java because it wasn't open. Imagine how much
more work could have been accomplished if they started with Java. Not that
Java is a great, or even pretty, language. It's just a lot easier to work with
than C++. Someday, we'll be able to move up another level of abstraction and
writing software will again become easier.

My point about Stallman was that he would keep developers in the "stone ages"
rather than be practical.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org#Use_of_Java>

~~~
jbm
"Practical"? Is that a good thing now?

I don't recall "practical" being synonymous with "awesome" or "excellent".
"Practical" is an excellent excuse for not having principle.

I have some issues with RMS' beliefs, but I applaud the fact that he acts on
principle. I wish I had embraced principle over practicality and had continued
working with Ruby, rather than taking a 5 year detour through PHPland.

------
shotgun
There's something that often goes overlooked by promoters of open source
licenses: The copyright holder is defining the licensing terms for _others_ ,
not for themselves.

While it's true that it is culturally a faux pas to appear as though you are
violating the "spirit" of your own license I think everyone needs a reminder
that copyright holders are, by definition, not restricted in what they can do
with their own stuff. Everyone else is a licensee bound to the terms of the
license.

I realize that's not the only problem with Oracle's behavior. But I still
think this point is important to acknowledge.

I'm not a lawyer, so if anyone can prove otherwise I'd love to hear the
argument.

(Are there any licenses that do place limitations on the copyright holders
themselves? Do we even need a mechanism for that?)

~~~
wmf
This isn't really about copyright licensing per se. Sun promised (in the JSPA
and other places) that they would certify independent JVMs and then weaseled
out at the last minute.

------
dstein
IANAL - is it technically infeasible for Apache to fork the language and call
it something else? I think it's getting to the point where if the Java
community really wants to continue using this language something drastic must
be done.

~~~
wmf
Google tried that and ended up on the wrong end of a patent lawsuit. The Java
community is just going to keep using OpenJDK like they do now. As evil as
Snoracle is being, it's mostly a theoretical problem given that so few people
use Harmony.

~~~
ajross
Uh, Android uses Harmony (or a subset thereof). I think that's a rather
important detail to understanding what's happening here.

~~~
wmf
I don't think it has much to do with Android, for two reasons. Google doesn't
care whether Harmony gets TCK-certified or not, and the Apache-Sun spat dates
from early 2007, before Android was even announced.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to_obtain_a_TCK_license_from_Sun)

------
sciboy
Can someone explain why Oracle _should_ give apache exemptions from field of
use restrictions? I thought the whole point with harmony was that
Apache/IBM/Intel et al were trying to create a competing vm that could be used
everywhere with no restrictions, with the intent of never giving anything back
to Sun/Oracle. How can this be in Oracles best interests given their large
investment - or am I missing something?

~~~
nl
Well...

(a) Java has always been marketed as an "open" environment, where alternate
VM's were encouraged.

(b) Oracle doesn't make any money from the J2SE JVM anyway (it's free to use),
and the income they get from licencing J2ME is dropping quickly.

(c) Apache/IBM/Intel _have_ given a _lot_ back to Java, and continue to do so.
Look at their involvement on the JCP process - most JCP changes aren't led by
Oracle/Sun and getting those done takes real engineering resources. The
outputs of them are happily picked up by Oracle/Sun and included in Java

(d) Given that IBM/Apache have invested as much in Java as Sun/Oracle ever did
it's not clear to me why Oracle _should_ try and stop them investing more to
build their own VM.

In anycase IBM has given up and join Oracle on OpenJDK (instead of Apache
Harmony).

~~~
sciboy
a) Really? What alternate vms were encouraged? Java itself was free.

b, c) Agreed, it's a rapidly failing ship.

d) Why should Oracle care how much a competitor has spent on developing a
replacement for Oracles technology?

~~~
nl
(a) On non Sun JVM-supported platforms Sun would always point to other VM's
(eg, hardware support for JVM bytecodes in ARM, etc). Also, they would quite
happily discuss the benefits of using IBM's Linux JVM.

d) The Java ecosystem has grown because of the diverse range of vendors. It's
easy to make an argument that JavaEE only survived the .NET onslaught back in
~2002-2005 because of the high-quality and free implementations from Apache.
The current biggest growth market for Java is in non-traditional areas (eg,
Google's product: AppEngine/J, GWT and especially Android). Oracle should work
with these vendors to keep the Java platform relevant.

~~~
sciboy
I'm not disagreeing, the ideal solution for me at least would be for Oracle to
BSD java, but that's not what I would do in their situation.

Everyone else wants Oracle to license to harmony because that's best for
everyone... except Oracle.

------
melling
We've waited long enough for Java 7. Let's get that one out then look at the
options. Fork Java, put the effort behind another language, like Go or Scala,
or simply let Oracle run with it.

~~~
pan69
The Java programming language is only part of the story. There is also this
thing called the Java Platform, aka the JVM. You can't just simply switch to
Scala, your Scala code needs to be executed by something.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Oh, you mean like .NET?

<http://www.scala-lang.org/node/168>

Yes, I am aware of the problems of this, too. * Not as stable as the Java
backend ever was * Any code that used Java libraries explicitly needs to be
rewritten * Stallman is going to throw a hissy fit about it being .NET

~~~
lyso
This page is often cited, yet referes to Scala 1.4. Can anyone point me to
documentation about running Scala 2.8 on .NET? Does it work?

------
Falaina
Just for reference, before the torches and pitchforks come out against Oracle,
Apache has butted heads with Sun over essentially the same issue:
<http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html>

~~~
pyre
True, but in the context of all of the recent activity in the Java world
(Apple dropping Java; IBM switching from Apache Harmony to Oracle Java; Oracle
suing Google), this takes on a new meaning than if you were just viewing it on
its own.

------
siddhant
Just for reference, the statement by the Apache Software Foundation board -
[https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/statement_by_the_a...](https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/statement_by_the_asf_board1)

------
davidj
Oracle owns Java and can do whatever it wishes to do with its property. Sun
tried a 'open' strategy to turn a profit with Java and it failed, everyone has
to understand that the old ways are out and the new ways are in. Oracle has a
fiducial duty to its shareholders to maximize profit. The Apache foundation
doesn't have this mandate. If the Apache foundation doesn't agree with what
Oracle does with its property, it can choose not to use it and use a different
technology -- or, because Oracle is a publicly traded company, they could buy
enough controlling shares and force them to change their actions of the Java
language. Alternatively the Apache foundation can move to a country that
doesn't allow software patents and implement their own changes.

------
rbanffy
What would prevent Oracle from just walking away of the JCP and releasing Java
versions as they find profitable?

Can't the community just fork either OpenJDK or Harmony and get rid of Oracle
altogether.

~~~
jaaron
Patents, for one. Field of use restrictions for another. OpenJDK's classpath
exception to the GPL does not apply to JavaME related classes, thus limiting
the use of OpenJDK for all platforms.

~~~
jrockway
Java's standard library is one of its worst features. A fork could just throw
this crap away and it wouldn't be too far off.

But honestly, people don't use Java because they want a good programming
language. They use it because they're already using Java. That will be a
problem for both Java 7 and any future fork.

~~~
rbanffy
Maybe people use Java because they want a solid cross-platform VM

~~~
ssmoot
Ditto. Though I'd narrow "cross platform" to non-Microsoft. No hate for MS,
but I don't see deploying Windows servers and associated licensing costs any
more likely for me than buying Oracle licenses.

So yeah, as a small Ruby shop that was looking at JRuby as a stepping stone to
a robust VM, this concerns me.

