or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Oracle and Apple announce OpenJDK Project for Java on Mac OS X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oracle and Apple announce OpenJDK Project for Java on Mac OS X - Page 2

post #41 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Android's Java-esque API and the way it uses the Dalvik VM as a replacement to the Java VM is the crux of the lawsuit.

Before Oracle ever bought Sun, Sun had claimed that Google's Android leached off Java-the-language without implementing the whole Java stack (and without licensing the mobile Java VM). Jonathan Schwartz (aka: the pony-tailed wonder) raised the issue with Eric Schmidt, and was told to pound sand because Sun didn't have the resources by that time to go after Google. Google wanted to leverage Java-the-language because they they needed a language everyone already knew; nobody was going to want to pick up some Google-invented language and Google knew it (they actually focus-grouped it, LOL).

So Google is "open" when it comes to leeching off of other people's work for their own gain, but not "open" when it comes to paying licensing fees to the company that incubated the technology they appropriated.

Note that Eric Schmidt wasn't an innocent bystander in all of this. People either forget or, in the case of most tech journalists and bloggers, willingly overlook the fact that Eric Schmidt cut his baby teeth at Sun and went on to lead the Java team and eventually became CTO at Sun. He knew exactly what he was doing, trying to weasel out of paying licensing fees to Sun for the use of Java in a mobile device and implementing the mobile Java VM as the license requires.

The only reason that Sun didn't sue Google because they knew the negative publicity (deserved or not) would impact their ability to find a buyer. They slow-played their hand, hoping that would be a diamond-in-the-rough to a potential buyer. Which is exactly were we came in with Oracle filing this lawsuit.


Well there are obviously two camps. Oracle/Sun and IBM are the companies with a track record of monetizing Java, so they have a vested interest in preventing Java from becoming fragmented. The pony-tailed open sores crowd have a vested interests in "sticking it to the man" and Google supports them because it suits Google, not because it helps any sort of "Open Java" initiatives; the more fragmented Java becomes, the better things are for Google. It's a pretty safe bet that Apple wants to let everyone else hash this out; they certainly don't want to be in the position of having to support multiple versions of a Java VM (esp. an Andoid mutant), and since they can get Oracle or OpenJDK to take that on, I'm sure Apple has no problem supporting the Oracle position at this time. (FWIW, Apache is free to develop as many of their own mutant JVM variants for OSX as they'd like.)

Given all the facts, I'm not sure whether Oracle is making a mess of things or not, but I agree it's not clear how this will all eventually shake out.

Nice write up. While I think that Oracle certainly is out to monetise Java as much as they can, they Apache libraries are very heavily used and can't just be discounted with a contemptuous "Open Sores" comment (unless that was a typo). The Apache libraries are generally of very high quality as well, and the contributors mainly don't want Oracle trying to make money off their hard work by limiting them into not being able to make a free VM implementation on whatever platform they please.

I hope they come to an agreement soon, as this fight is not good for the Java community.
Ja sam probam
Reply
Ja sam probam
Reply
post #42 of 43
This is one detail I'm not entirely clear on, as per Mike Swingler:

http://lists.apple.com/archives/Java.../msg00104.html

"There are several parts of our Java SE 6 implementation (like the AWT widgets) that are not contributable, in much the same way that several parts of Oracle's implementation are not."

What does this mean? Does this mean that all of AWT for OS X needs to be rewritten by Oracle, or are the "widgets" just a small subset of the OS X Swing functionality?
post #43 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

This is one detail I'm not entirely clear on, as per Mike Swingler:

http://lists.apple.com/archives/Java.../msg00104.html

"There are several parts of our Java SE 6 implementation (like the AWT widgets) that are not contributable, in much the same way that several parts of Oracle's implementation are not."

What does this mean? Does this mean that all of AWT for OS X needs to be rewritten by Oracle, or are the "widgets" just a small subset of the OS X Swing functionality?

Looking at the source email I get two separate vibes.

1) The existing AWT implementation on OS X is based on X11 code and the want to deprecate that flavor of functionality and replace it with Cocoa/OpenGL

2) Not contributable generally means there is patent covered code in the current implementation and Apple does not wish to also make the patent rights part of the Open Source grant. So a clean implementation of those specific chunks will need to be generated by the community (which includes the Apple engineers assigned to work on the OpenJDK project).
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Oracle and Apple announce OpenJDK Project for Java on Mac OS X