N
Nicholas Potts
Hi, can anyone tell me if Java is actually open source as the
development kit and compiler are available free?
Thanks,
Nick
development kit and compiler are available free?
Thanks,
Nick
M
Michael B Allen
No. But the JDK from http://java.sun.com/ is indeed free. There actually
is an Open Source implementation of java runtime and class libraries. I
don't know much about them though.
Mike
M
Marco Schmidt
Nicholas Potts:
The JDK is free, and you can get all the source code (or at least
almost all source code, src.zip for most of the class library, and you
can get more under the Community License).
However, the JDK is not distributed under one of the open source
"change as you like as long as you redistribute your changes" license.
Regards,
Marco
The JDK is free, and you can get all the source code (or at least
almost all source code, src.zip for most of the class library, and you
can get more under the Community License).
However, the JDK is not distributed under one of the open source
"change as you like as long as you redistribute your changes" license.
Regards,
Marco
X
xarax
Marco Schmidt said:
and that is a very good thing, indeed. Sun must still maintain
tight control over the language and JVM specifications. There are
way too many harebrained requests for changes. Just think what
would happen if control was lost to the masses. eek!
J
Jon Martin Solaas
xarax said:
Why? Sun still could maintain control over the language spec. And, if
they released SDK/JRE under OpenSource licence, they'd still have full
control over their own implementation. If some oddball harebrains rather
would use a derived sdk, then what's wrong with that? Either they would
just be a marginal user group, or a major user group. In the latter
case, Sun sure could use the competition, obviously not capable of
understanding and implementing Java users needs, and in the first case,
well, I don't think that would be such a big problem.
As far as I know there is no legal problem implementing a compiler and
runtime from scratch following the Java spec. closely, and there would
be nothing wrong adding and removing features to and from such an
implementation either, the result just wouldn't qualify as Java anymore.
Have a look at the waba/superwaba project. You can use almost any jdk to
program waba programs. You can only use a subset of the java language,
the libraries available aren't those from Sun at all, and your
class-files run on the waba runtime, which is *not* a Java compliant
runtime.
D
Dale King
Jon Martin Solaas said:
That's a bad assumption. Micro$oft created a derived SDK that was not
compliant with Sun's and at least at one time was probably the most widely
used VM. I would not call M$ a marginal user group.
That assumes that those deriving it have good intentions. Definitely wasn't
the case with Micro$oft. The issue is that you have a platform you can rely
on and that you don't have to deal with umpteen incompatible versions.
That's right. You can do whatever you want as you don't call it Java
(although you can't use their source code as the basis for your new
product). And SuperWaba does not call itself Java, because legally it can't.
P
Phillip Lord
Dale> That's a bad assumption. Micro$oft created a derived SDK that
Dale> was not compliant with Sun's and at least at one time was
Dale> probably the most widely used VM. I would not call M$ a
Dale> marginal user group.
That's because M$ had the biggest user group.
How many people developed for it, and used the non compliant parts
though?
Dale> That assumes that those deriving it have good
Dale> intentions. Definitely wasn't the case with Micro$oft. The
Dale> issue is that you have a platform you can rely on and that you
Dale> don't have to deal with umpteen incompatible versions.
There is a cost to Sun's attitude as well though.
For instance the nature of Sun's license makes it a pain in the ass to
use on linux systems, because it can't be repackaged.
Phil
Dale> was not compliant with Sun's and at least at one time was
Dale> probably the most widely used VM. I would not call M$ a
Dale> marginal user group.
That's because M$ had the biggest user group.
How many people developed for it, and used the non compliant parts
though?
Dale> That assumes that those deriving it have good
Dale> intentions. Definitely wasn't the case with Micro$oft. The
Dale> issue is that you have a platform you can rely on and that you
Dale> don't have to deal with umpteen incompatible versions.
There is a cost to Sun's attitude as well though.
For instance the nature of Sun's license makes it a pain in the ass to
use on linux systems, because it can't be repackaged.
Phil
B
Bryce (Work)
Big misconception you are propagating here:
Open Source != Free
and, to answer your question, the correlary is:
Free != Open Source
Open Source does not have to be free. In fact, there are quite a few
decent open source business models.
J
Jezuch
U¿ytkownik Bryce (Work) napisa³:
But which meaning of "free" do you use here?
In Poland we have another problem. "Free (as in speech)" translates to
"wolny", but this word means also "slow"
) So people tend to think that
free software is crappy by definition...
But which meaning of "free" do you use here?
In Poland we have another problem. "Free (as in speech)" translates to
"wolny", but this word means also "slow"
) So people tend to think thatfree software is crappy by definition...
B
Bent C Dalager
In Poland we have another problem. "Free (as in speech)" translates to
"wolny", but this word means also "slow"
free software is crappy by definition...
Hehe. The new slogan for the FSF: "Free (as in Saddam Hussein)"
Cheers
Bent D
R
Roedy Green
Examples:
The Javac compiler itself is free, but Sun does not freely release the
source code.
Some of the programs I write cost money, but all come with source.
I have never been clear on the terminology:
does open source mean:
1.you can peek at the source free, just not use it free.
2.that source must be bundled free with the software, though the
software itself may cost.
3.that the source is available, perhaps at some extravagant price
separately.
Also, how do those terms apply to GPL and LGPL.
see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/gpl.html
J
John C. Bollinger
And sometimes Free != Free. To some, most notably Richard Stallman and
the FSF, the term "free software" has nothing to do with pricing, but
rather with liberty. The canonical comparison is free speech as opposed
to free beer.
The most widely held definition seems to be something like
4. A source license permitting at least modification and reuse --
perhaps subject to certain conditions, but not costing money -- is
either explicitly or implictly part of every distribution, and the
source itself is either included or readily available at no cost.
There is no necessary connection with the cost to acquire the package at
all, but once you have it you also have or can get the source, along
with liberal rights to use the source.
Software released under the GPL or LGPL is definately open source by
anyone's definition. The FSF draws a distinction between GPL'd software
("free software") and other open source software in the sense that any
derivative of a piece of GPL'd software may only be distributed under
the GPL itself, thus guaranteeing that the whole line is "free" (and
therefore also open source).
John Bollinger
(e-mail address removed)
the FSF, the term "free software" has nothing to do with pricing, but
rather with liberty. The canonical comparison is free speech as opposed
to free beer.
The most widely held definition seems to be something like
4. A source license permitting at least modification and reuse --
perhaps subject to certain conditions, but not costing money -- is
either explicitly or implictly part of every distribution, and the
source itself is either included or readily available at no cost.
There is no necessary connection with the cost to acquire the package at
all, but once you have it you also have or can get the source, along
with liberal rights to use the source.
Software released under the GPL or LGPL is definately open source by
anyone's definition. The FSF draws a distinction between GPL'd software
("free software") and other open source software in the sense that any
derivative of a piece of GPL'd software may only be distributed under
the GPL itself, thus guaranteeing that the whole line is "free" (and
therefore also open source).
John Bollinger
(e-mail address removed)
B
Brad BARCLAY
Roedy said:
The official definition goes something like this:
An Open Source software project is one which is distributed under one
of the OSI certified Open Source licenses. See:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
...for a list of approved licenses.
You can read the OSI's official "Open Source Definition" here:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
The GPL and LGPL conform to the Open Source Definition, and are thus
Open Source licenses.
Brad BARCLAY
H
Harald Hein
Roedy Green said:
Roughly "Open Source" is a term coined by people who didn't like the
political connotation attached to "free software" by the people who
invented free software. It is also meant to avoid the confusion about
the term "free" (the "free" in "free software" comes from freedom, not
from price). You seem to use the term in the sence "free of charge",
which is not what was meant.
Without seeing the complete license this is difficult to judge. But
most likely this is not open source. Using source code at will is the
freedom that open souce / free software licenses try to secure for the
users.
Bundling is usually not required. But if you have one tool, it is
usually simpler to bundle the source than to provide additional means
of obtaining it.
One aspect of open source is that you can get the source for free (a
nominal fee for shiping, handling, media is allowed), modify it for
your purpose and re-distribute it under the same terms as the original
license.
Again might or might not be open source. If the source is available for
free, AND if modification and re-distribution is allowed this might be
open source.
I think you are asking the wrong questions. You are looking at isolated
activities one might or might not do with source code. Open software is
about securing a number of rights for you, protecting your freedom to
make use of software as you need it. And it is about securing that once
the rights have been granted they can't be taken away.
Both are free software licenses. The inventors don't like if they are
called open source licenses, but they of course qualify.
The LGPL is less restrictiv, because it allows to integrate the free
software in non free software, and distribution of the result under a
non-free license. You have to meet certain criteria, too, for the free
parts of the software. The LGPL was originally created for things like
compiler libraries. Before the LGPL one couldn't compile and distribute
a non-free program with a GPL compiler, because the resulting code
contained parts of the library.
T
Tim Tyler
: Hi, can anyone tell me if Java is actually open source as the
: development kit and compiler are available free?
Java does not qualify as "Open Source" under "The Open Source Definition":
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
E.g. it fails to meet the third condition: "Derived Works".
I would describe it as "proprietary code from Sun Microsystems".
: development kit and compiler are available free?
Java does not qualify as "Open Source" under "The Open Source Definition":
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
E.g. it fails to meet the third condition: "Derived Works".
I would describe it as "proprietary code from Sun Microsystems".