tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post1821715429229243807..comments2024-01-24T14:53:02.919+00:00Comments on Stephen Colebourne's blog: No more Java 7Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-59730513892572545862009-04-02T00:10:50.000+01:002009-04-02T00:10:50.000+01:00The lack of a JSR seems more linked to the slowles...The lack of a JSR seems more linked to the slowless of the JCP process than the chance of no open Java spec . A spec will come, they just need to know what going to be in it before they write it.<br /><br />We have:<br /><br />Java the Language (like C#) defined by a given spec <br />Java the Platform (like .NET) defined by a given spec <br />Java the TM of Sun (like .NET)<br />Java the Reference Implementation provided by Sun<br />JTK the Test of said Java RI<br /><br />Each of these has their own IP in some fashion or another.<br /><br />Regarding IP:<br /><br />We have IP that is part of a given JSR / Spec (an algorithem; I seem to recall Nokia had such as part one of the JavaME JSR which would not give IP rights without $$)<br /><br />We have IP that is part of an implementation (Java Source was not opened until all IP encumerance were resolved or replaced like some of the font libraries; once this occurred it became OpenJDK; this does not immediately remove/replace encumerances from older versions only forward implementations).<br /><br />We have IP that is part of a test suite (I don't have an example here other than to say there could be similar IP encumerance in this "implementation" as their were for the RI itself).<br /><br />We have Trade mark concerns...<br /><br />Java (TM) = TM Concern<br />Open JDK => No TM Concerns<br /><br />In the end, I think Sun's motives are partly to protect them selves (to avoid a SCO vs Linux scenario) and to a degree to monitorize their Java investiment.<br /><br />From another perspective, if someone uses an unofficial version of Java (Harmony) and something goes wrong, then there is a risk the unofficial version could hurt the reputation of Java (and Sun) as a whole and could result in legal actions against Sun as the proxy collected IP guardian.<br /><br />There are probably benefits on both sides...but in the end since like it or not Sun is still closer to the RI and still has the TradeMark for Java (I guess you could say Sun is acting as the the defactor equivalent benevolant dictator -ala Linus for Linux). <br /><br />If we have Harmony and OpenJDK...It seems to me rather than uniting behind a single project, we now have competing project with competing licenses, with different IP/Legal concerns. This ultimately splits the developers between two projects instead of one.Eric Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-64261335332441893532009-04-01T00:07:18.000+01:002009-04-01T00:07:18.000+01:00If Apache (/IBM) just could get a decent "Jav...If Apache (/IBM) just could get a decent "Java 6"-like version of Harmony out the door, I wouldn't care a single cent what it was called or certified against, only whether it performed. I know that many others can't do that, because they have moronic pointy-haired bosses, but see - I don't give a flying fsck about that. I'll release my software with what runs it fastest and/or leanest. Hell, I'll even compromise on that to get the word out.<br /><br />Apache could call it Harmony v."This is the version that we'd try to certify against the TCK for Java 6 had we had the possibility of getting it".0.0. I guess you wouldn't violate any agreements by just calling it Harmony 6.0 either, which, by judging from current Harmony 5.0, is the plan already.<br /><br />I'd be happy.<br /><br />I think the problem here is more that there are NOT ONE single release from Harmony yet. And that what they currently are aiming at is 5.0, while what will be available RSN is 7.0.stolsvikhttp://stolsvik.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-56615511576304136892009-03-30T22:19:18.000+01:002009-03-30T22:19:18.000+01:00@Jiles, If Sun now believe that GPL'd Open JDK...@Jiles, If Sun now believe that GPL'd Open JDK replaces the need for an open specification and an open standard, then they should say so. Publicly. They currently claim that Java SE is an open specification via the JCP, yet clearly they are actively preventing it from so being.<br /><br />Its also worth pointing out that if Sun get away with this for Java SE, what stops them getting away with this for Java EE, or any other JSR. Do you want to see a world where Apache cannot implement any JSR? Where there is only one open source implementation of each JSR - the Sun sponsored one?<br /><br />I'd also note that there is no evidence that Java SE 5 or 6 were unduly slowed down by having a JSR.<br /><br />I'm not going to comment on your characterisation of Apache, as you are entitled to your opinion - suffice it to say I disagree. I would note that the FAQ accompanying the Apache open letter explains how companies bundling Harmony as their own JVM would almost certainly need to buy the testing kit themselves anyway, removing one of your arguments.<br /><br />On GPLv3, it might be worth enquiring why Sun have not chosen to change to GPLv3?<br /><br />Please read the other blogs in the series to see more of the picture about how the JCP works.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-37047359473241093092009-03-30T20:49:15.000+01:002009-03-30T20:49:15.000+01:00I wouldn't be surprised if you are right.
How...I wouldn't be surprised if you are right.<br /><br />However, you might argue that a GPLed implementation is a pretty damn good replacement for any formal specification (especially since until recently all reasonably complete implementations were closed source). One huge problem with standardization driven development is that it is slow and bureaucratic. <br /><br />It's a shame of course that the test suite is not released under the same license though and this will definitely pose problems for Apache Harmony.<br /><br />On the other hand, they are free to provide their own test suite, look at the GPL source code of the reference implementation, and not call it Java. Technically they could even create a test that calls method foo in Harmony and then in OpenJDK and compares the result. The license allows that. What better way to prove you are compatible then by showing it is doing the exact same things? I don't know if it is practical but it sure is a legal.<br /><br />There are many successful opensource projects with only one implementation. I don't think that is necessarily a problem, provided the community is open enough. In cases where this isn't so, forking can be an effective tool (e.g. x.org). We've already seen external pressure from e.g. Red Hat leading to real change in the OpenJDK.<br /><br />As for Harmony, this was always IBMs little pet project. It exists because of SUN and IBM not being to friendly. IBM can afford to license the toolkit if needed, after all they make billions of Java (unlike Sun). I don't buy the argument of Apache being poor volunteers who can't afford the licensing cost: most of their projects (including Harmony) have serious industrial backing (in many cases IBM). The main argument for Harmony (control aside) is the Apache 2.0 license which allows bundling with closed source components (unlike the GPL). In other words, Harmonies biggest fans are amongst those companies actually interested in specifically this feature. Such as for example Google who are depending on Harmony in Android.<br /><br />So I think you are only telling half the story and if I were Stallman I might be leaning towards a full GPLed (GPL 3, no less) version of Java rather than a Apache 2.0 licensed one favoured by closed source proponents.<br /><br />In any case, the same political bickering that is frustrating progress here has also crippled the JCP especially JEE5 has been somewhat of a disappointment and quite many are looking to Spring rather than to Sun for new goodies. Same with IBM and OSGI. It remains to be seen how much owning the Java trademark will mean in the long run (especially if IBM buys them). Fundamentally, if IBM and Sun don't get along, they won't agree on much inside the JCP either.Jilles Van Gurphttp://www.jillesvangurp.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-68952416787340646792009-03-30T20:41:45.000+01:002009-03-30T20:41:45.000+01:00"For one thing, the platform was so vast and ..."For one thing, the platform was so vast and evolving so fast that it was difficult for developers to catch up with changes in each new version."<br /><br />I read: it's so good I can't keep up. Great reasoning...<br /><br />"I strongly feel corporates (read Sun, Oracle et al.) should stay out of technology." Hum. And who else would pay the developers? RMS? The mighty US Government?<br /><br />Laughable...Cloves Almeidanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-74356757521178579472009-03-28T20:54:53.000+00:002009-03-28T20:54:53.000+00:00This is the reason why I have always absolutely re...This is the reason why I have always absolutely refused to recommend Java for use in enterprise projects! For one thing, the platform was so vast and evolving so fast that it was difficult for developers to catch up with changes in each new version. For another, I always had a feeling that Sun would pull a fast one (like the restrictive licensing fiasco discussed above) someday. I strongly feel corporates (read Sun, Oracle et al.) should stay out of technology. Their greed and ruthlessness result in actions that cause a lot of pain for everyone involved.Louis Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-67419670997203324302009-03-28T18:06:11.000+00:002009-03-28T18:06:11.000+00:00"Please look at the names and associations of..."Please look at the names and associations of contributors to many of your favourite Open Source software. You'll often see the word "IBM" next to them. It is no accident.<br /><br />So to claim that IBM's open source contribution is, as you say, "rather insignificant", is quite laughable, and shows that you have not researched the issue before speaking up. "<br /><br />But if you critizize Piotr because he doesn't give the numbers, why aren't yourself giving some numbers? Ok, I'll do: here they are:<br /><br />http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/01/where_does_open.html<br /><br />Sun provides more than 3x the open source provided by IBM. In fact, I must say I see just a few things provided by IBM in my usual work. If one consider that IBM is much larger than Sun (let's say 10x?), the normalized ratio gets to 30:1. Pretty strong number, right?Fabrizio Giudicihttp://weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-16264755350747299652009-03-28T17:11:52.000+00:002009-03-28T17:11:52.000+00:00@Dave, Sun sell a combination of Java licenses (ME...@Dave, Sun sell a combination of Java licenses (ME/SE/EE) and support. The Java business of Sun is in profit.<br /><br />@FU, LOL, JSR-310 isn't ready for inclusion right now, and I won't compromise on quality.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-36076353214734655992009-03-28T04:26:07.000+00:002009-03-28T04:26:07.000+00:00Are u angry about ur date time jsr will not be inc...Are u angry about ur date time jsr will not be included into the jdk 7.???FUnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-17110964976463452082009-03-28T00:49:11.000+00:002009-03-28T00:49:11.000+00:00@Emilian, Apache has a signed legal agreement with...@Emilian, Apache has a signed legal agreement with Sun, the JSPA, that states that Apache Harmony HAS to be tested using the TCK supplied by the spec lead - Sun. And Sun, legally, HAS to supply the testing kit. Nor are Sun aren't blocking this on grounds of $cost, they're blocking this because they want their JDK to be the only open source JDK.<br /><br />@Andy, When I said "a whole political game started" I was referring to Sun choosing to not provide Apache with the testing kit as it had done for 25 other JSRs.<br /><br />Where you said "it would be more like 'no non-GPL-compatible' JDK", I disagree. The restrictions placed on the testing kit by Sun would be just as unacceptable to any other open source group irrespective of license. The additional terms are against the OSI open source definition.<br /><br />You said "Do you really think that I can't implement 'String.toString()' just because Sun specifies that it returns the String as a String in its spec? ". My answer is yes, exactly that. You are not permitted to implement the Java SE spec unless you also implement the whole of the rest of the spec and pass all the tests. Read the JSPA.<br /><br /><br />Many other points in these comments are addressed in my follow up posts.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-53126961913130353302009-03-27T20:30:18.000+00:002009-03-27T20:30:18.000+00:00Very interesting points.
IMHO if everybody can ju...Very interesting points.<br /><br />IMHO if everybody can just treat the OPENJDK as the SUN implementation of the up coming Java 7 JSR and use only the features included in the "java 7 specification", then everything will be go as usual.<br /><br />But sun really have to let Apache to make its own Java to show people the heart that they will to open java. If sun's implementation is good enough, I think the other implementation will stay long. On the other hand, if the Apache's implementation is good enough, sun can save the money on making reference implementation.<br /><br />Sometime, I think may we a well recognized leader as "top java features manager" is essential to the Java community. Nowadays, every java user is trying to push the favorites into the java specification. These users keep on yelling Java sucks if their favorites don't get into the specification. For example, the debate between 'have' and 'not have' a closure is a very typically example to this situation. We need someone who has same power on Java as Mr. Linus on Linux. Otherwise, the java's specification will become a endless debate like Perl 6's specification or a all-in specification in order to satisfy everyone.F.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-41560635169926677462009-03-27T20:28:31.000+00:002009-03-27T20:28:31.000+00:00if Java is such a golden goose to Sun, can someone...if Java is such a golden goose to Sun, can someone explain how they make money from it? IBM pays licensing fees. what else?davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-23180309808070806392009-03-27T19:30:43.000+00:002009-03-27T19:30:43.000+00:00@John, As I can't speak for Sun (just as I'...@John, As I can't speak for Sun (just as I'm not speaking for Apache), I can't say what their motives are. However, here is one link that provides one (probable) explanation http://www.javaworld.com/community/node/2601 .Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-42054503101468453762009-03-27T18:17:23.000+00:002009-03-27T18:17:23.000+00:00@Stephen regarding @John, right. I was trying to s...@Stephen regarding @John, right. I was trying to say that *Sun* doesn't need any "nasty underhanded tactics" of reneging on its statements, and should just let the GPL do its work of preventing forks -- regardless of license -- if that's what it fears.<br /><br />But what's the reason behind Sun's behavior? If it's the fear of IBM stealing Java through an Apache fork, then it just might be about the license, as IBM (and others) can take the Apache code proprietary. Anyway, if the rumor of IBM's purchase of Sun is true, it may be resolved very soon.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-59034845237376461152009-03-27T17:44:22.000+00:002009-03-27T17:44:22.000+00:00@John, This isn't a GPL vs Apache license batt...@John, This isn't a GPL vs Apache license battle. Its about open standards.<br /><br />Look what Sun said in the official business terms for the Java SE 6 specification:<br /><br />"<br />7. Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent open source projects from creating and distributing their own compatible open source implementations of Java SE 6, using standard open source licenses. (Yes, you can create your own open source implementation of Java SE 6 if you really want to. But we're also doing everything we can to make it easy for you to use the original RI sources! See http://jdk6.dev.java.net.)<br />"<br />http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=270<br /><br />Sun was (2006) and still publicly claims to be fully willing to see an implementation of Java SE 6 under any standard open source license. This is exactly what you'd expect for an open standard. <br /><br />Since Sun are clearly reneging on this public agreement, and associated JSPA based legal agreement. They should either fix the issue, or be honest and publicly admit that Java SE is no longer an open standard.<br /><br />@Andy, "Are you speculating that a Sun/Apache contract says that Apache can't release their own software if it implements Sun's spec?"<br /><br />Yes. Apache can't release without an IP grant from Sun. They don't get the IP grant until the tests are passed. But Sun aren't providing the tests. See http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/a_question_of_ipStephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-11875876728933854672009-03-27T15:56:47.000+00:002009-03-27T15:56:47.000+00:00You say: "to ensure that every specification ...You say: "to ensure that every specification must be tested before it is officially allowed to be released as an implementation of the specification"<br /><br />Could you provide a link for this? Are you speculating that a Sun/Apache contract says that Apache can't release their own software if it implements Sun's spec?Andy Trippnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-59128399130947532532009-03-27T15:46:32.000+00:002009-03-27T15:46:32.000+00:00"to ensure that every specification must be t..."to ensure that every specification must be tested before it is officially allowed to be released as an implementation of the specification"<br /><br />Could you provide a link for this?<br /><br />"when Apache came to obtain the testing kit for the specification a whole political game started."<br /><br />Could you also provide a link here that indicates that something "started" here? I thought the TCK licensing was always that way.<br /><br />"Sun was going out of its way to ensure that there was no competition to its own JDK."<br /><br />Just a minor point...if Sun was "going out of its way", it was only to stop Harmony, not Classpath. So it would be more like "no non-GPL-compatible" JDK.<br /><br />"...but the specification is now no longer open"<br /><br />You made a big jump there, from the Sun/Apache test kit dispute to the spec being "now no longer open". You'll need a lot of words to connect those two dots.<br /><br />"* There are two ways you can implement the Java specification - (1) pay Sun money, or (2) ensure your code is "mostly derived from the OpenJDK". <br /><br />That's just wrong. Anyone is allowed to implement anything spec that they want. The only restriction is whether Sun is willing to let them use the "Java" trademark. Do you really think that I can't implement "String.toString()" just because Sun specifies that it returns the String as a String in its spec?<br /><br />"Java SE is no longer an open standard"<br /><br />Please don't say "Java SE" when you mean the spec - it's confusing. So you skipped your main argument: how is it that when one company chooses not to license the test kit (and so can't call their implementation "Java") means that the spec isn't "open"?<br /><br />"Sun puts in all the investment and Sun has all the mindshare,"<br /><br />How can you say this after you've just acknowledged that people outside Sun are involved and contributing (and always have)?<br /><br />"If the JSR happens it will be a rubber stamp. So why bother?"<br /><br />Great point, I'm wondering that, too. I'm mainly wondering whether it's really worked like this all along. I think it has - Sun's always developed first, and added/approved the spec either in parallel or afterwards. Nothing really wrong with that - most software's done that way - but it does mean that the JCP is a bit of a sham.Andy Trippnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-10267430250372167002009-03-27T15:39:33.000+00:002009-03-27T15:39:33.000+00:00Managers at Sun have always been overly paranoid a...Managers at Sun have always been overly paranoid about competing Java implementations. For years they wouldn't open source Java because they were afraid of forking, so sure enough, they got lots of forks and clones -- Transvirtual Kaffe, GNU Classpath, Microsoft VM. Finally realizing that the GPL can actually help prevent forking, they release it under GPL version 2, and now they're worried about BSD- and Apache-style licensed competition.<br /><br />They should have simply trusted the GPL years ago, and they should simply trust it now. The GPL, more than any other license, has been quite good at preventing forks and unifying potential competing implementations:<br /><br />Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible.<br />Or Else.<br />http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html<br /><br />There's a place for licenses such as Apache or BSD, but if your objective is to prevent forking and to unify competing solutions around one implementation -- well, that's the GPL's best trick! There's no need to resort to any nasty underhanded tactics as mentioned in this post.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-26889864157829400802009-03-27T14:46:32.000+00:002009-03-27T14:46:32.000+00:00"And incidentally, Google has chosen to use H..."And incidentally, Google has chosen to use Harmony class libraries in Android mobile phones, so at least someone is interested in an alternative to Sun."<br /><br />LOL!!!<br /><br />You're really stretching and quite frankly laughably stretching ... I doubt Google's choice to use Harmony class libraries has anything to do with what you got yourself all in a bundle about ... a blanket Java SE 7 specification. I'd speculate Google's choice had more to do with licenses (GPL versus Apache). I'd speculate Google didn't like GPL for Android.<br /><br />Don't know one wastes their time (including me) with trying to reason with a fanetic.gotta laughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-33403073947508840562009-03-27T12:38:09.000+00:002009-03-27T12:38:09.000+00:00@Piotr, I agree that taken on balance, Sun has con...@Piotr, I agree that taken on balance, Sun has contributed a lot of good to the Open Source world (as has IBM). Given a choice, I would prefer Sun to remain an independent company. But that doesn't stop me from holding them to account when they don't uphold their prior public statements and legal agreements.<br /><br />@atc, Is it within Sun's rights to break prior public statements and legal agreements? Thats all that is being requested by Apache.<br /><br />And if there effectively no way to actually implement the Java SE specification, should we allow Sun to claim that it is open?<br /><br />And incidentally, Google has chosen to use Harmony class libraries in Android mobile phones, so at least someone is interested in an alternative to Sun.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-35970418513943712802009-03-27T10:57:31.000+00:002009-03-27T10:57:31.000+00:00@Piotr:
Please look at the names and associations...@Piotr:<br /><br />Please look at the names and associations of contributors to many of your favourite Open Source software. You'll often see the word "IBM" next to them. It is no accident. <br /><br />So to claim that IBM's open source contribution is, as you say, "rather insignificant", is quite laughable, and shows that you have not researched the issue before speaking up.<br /><br />Note: I am not an IBM employee. My only association with IBM is as a customer of theirs.DRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-73950605157735194072009-03-27T09:55:10.000+00:002009-03-27T09:55:10.000+00:00Very interesting perspective, thank you.
I have t...Very interesting perspective, thank you.<br /><br />I have to say: it's within Sun's rights to do this. It's their baby after all.<br /><br />Given that we now have an OpenJDK, isn't that really what we want? The specification is (also) as you put it in the context of JSRs, a "rubber stamp". <br /><br />Perhaps this is as you implied, entirely about competition. Sun close the specs, and anyone who wants their own JDK would branch off Sun's HotSpot. I don't believe that there's a huge amount of competition within the context of JVMs/JDKs - and I'd prefer to use Sun's version (SE wise at least) any day.<br /><br />Is it really that much of an issue?atchttp://beplacid.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-45932668532784329542009-03-27T09:37:35.000+00:002009-03-27T09:37:35.000+00:00Yes, yes, we know, SUN is a BAD, BAD company. Not ...Yes, yes, we know, SUN is a BAD, BAD company. Not like IBM, which is a GOOD Company. So what SUN is giving ALL its software products available on open source licence, including high end solutions like Directory Server, so what SUN gave to the community OpenOffice - the only reason why anybody considers seriously using Linux.<br /><br />The only thing that SUN lacks is good PR. IBM, on the other hand, is a PR master of the World.<br /><br />I am always surprised why open source advocates are bashing SUN, their only true corporate supporter. IBM is talking, talking about open source, but the fact is that their contribution is rather insignificant and always MUST be profitable for IBM.<br /><br />SUN must earn money somehow, right now other companies were able to monetize their efforts, in the best interest of open source communit is to have SUN sound and kicking.Piotrhttp://www.xoft.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-11323920844929532322009-03-27T07:23:20.000+00:002009-03-27T07:23:20.000+00:00I think Apache might have brought this onto themse...I think Apache might have brought this onto themselves with their political agenda.<br /><br />Because from the way I look at it, the problem isn't with JCP, it's with the JCK (the compatibility kit) which Apache not only wants to get for free but also under a license of their choosing.<br /><br />I assume JCK is a lot older then the JCP and that it did take some man-hours to create and maintain. So Sun is investing money into that for quite some time. Apache wants it under their license, but also in perpetuity (I assume every future JCK should be available to Apache or just owned by Apache to make it simple).<br /><br />What I don't understand is why doesn't Apache create their own JCK ? They surely must have something like this already ? I think the answer is a bit simple: passing the JCK gives you a lot more visibility then passing the "ApacheCK".<br /><br />What people fail to realize is the UNIX itself is trademarked by The Open Group. Yet I don't see people railing on the streets that Linux isn't a true UNIX -- Linux is becoming the de-facto UNIX !<br /><br />So why does Apache try so hard about this and tries to boycott the JCP for Java 7 in order to get the JCK under their terms ? Is having no JCP better in their political agenda since they can cry wolf ? Why don't they just ignore the JCK and make their own: in the long run it's going to become the de-facto one.<br /><br />I understand that Sun might be trying to make some money from JCK usage (I bet IBM pays a lot for that) but why is Apache bothered so much by this ? Sun open sourced the JDK itself, now aren't we going to stop until they open-source the JCK ? What's next: personal emails within Sun must be 'open-source' ?<br /><br />So, long story short: don't try to be in both places at once. You can't behave like a non-profit *and* big corporation. Let Sun keep some of their toys: you got what you wanted (OpenJDK). Now go and create competition in the compatibility kit market.Emilian Boldhttp://www.emilianbold.ronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-85153610348302967952009-03-27T02:09:02.000+00:002009-03-27T02:09:02.000+00:00Thanks for your detailed observation.
I love Java...Thanks for your detailed observation.<br /><br />I love Java, but not the jailed one. I am just wondering if Apache Foundation will put more focus on other languages which run on JVM.robonoobnoreply@blogger.com