Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Apr 2006 18:31 UTC
Java The community effort hosted by the Apache Software Foundation to create an open source, J2SE 5.0 compatible Java runtime/virtual machine is progressing slowly but steadily. Despite some indifference and prejudice by some OSS pundits, the project has been recently moving along nicely with key players like Intel and IBM contributing their own programmers and source code to the effort.
Thread beginning with comment 110469
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
disappointing
by gregorlowski on Sun 2nd Apr 2006 20:13 UTC
gregorlowski
Member since:
2006-03-20

If IBM wants to contribute something, why don't they open source their jvm? Providing some tools to help an apache-licensed project make progress is in their interests -- maybe they can learn something from the progress that harmony makes and then use it in their non-FOSS tools. Look at IBM's HTTPServer -- it's basically apache with a couple added modules, but they don't distribute source (or at least I couldn't get it last time I tried!)

I really don't understand Harmony. Is it just for ego reasons that they don't just contribute to projects like gnu classpath, kaffe, jamvm, and cacao? Is it some license-ego thing on the part of the contributors (We won't do GPL?). Or is apache harmony just a marionette that is controlled by business interests that don't want to see a GPL java succeed?

I've been really happy with gcj, classpath, and using either jamvm, cacao or kaffe in GNU/Linux. I wish the swing compatibility was better, but if I really wanted to do GUI work in java then I'd be happy with SWT/JFace or java-gnome.

In any case, I'll stick with the above tools for my java needs in GNU/Linux for the near future and choose other languages with more FOSS tools when I have an option.

Reply Score: 5

RE: disappointing
by lord_rob on Sun 2nd Apr 2006 21:45 in reply to "disappointing"
lord_rob Member since:
2005-08-06

If IBM wants to contribute something, why don't they open source their jvm?

It has been discussed a lot on harmony-dev mailing list. If I remember correctly, they cannot open theit jvm because it contains a lot of sun code.

Anyway, recently SableVM [ www.sablevm.org ] has been relicensed to Apache Software License [ASLv2] and will now be part of harmony.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: disappointing
by kaiwai on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 04:33 in reply to "RE: disappointing"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It has been discussed a lot on harmony-dev mailing list. If I remember correctly, they cannot open theit jvm because it contains a lot of sun code.

One could also argue that it would be better to start off with a clean slate so that all the features required can be built in from the ground up rather than them being tacked on at the last minute.

Atleast if everything is designed from the ground up, all the features and considerations can be taken into account so that the different parts of the VM can be properly documented, designed to be easy to maintained and most importantly, when it comes to porting to other platforms such as FreeBSD, 300 hoops won't need to be jumped through as with the case of the current situation of JVM.

The idea situation would be to replicate the Java classes and use the mono VM.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: disappointing
by arooaroo on Sun 2nd Apr 2006 22:01 in reply to "disappointing"
arooaroo Member since:
2005-07-06

"Is it some license-ego thing on the part of the contributors (We won't do GPL?)"

I can't speak for the Apache guys, but this is my take. The Apache organisation have had their license for a long time and its even freer than GPL. They've made lots of libraries and frameworks that have been widely adopted by the Java community.

However, their software stack was always dependent on a JRE that was not compliant with the Apache license. This is the last piece of the jigsaw to have a full Apache stack. They believe in their license as much as FSF believes in GPL. Therefore, the GPL-based offerings are too restrictive for them and as much as they'd love to reuse, it doesn't conform, and regrettably, that means they have to leave it be.

So I don't think it's an ego thing. It's just what they need to do to fulfil their ambition to have a full Apache Java stack.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: disappointing
by Wes Felter on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 19:00 in reply to "RE: disappointing"
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

But do any users really want "a full Apache Java stack"? Why? It sounds like many Apache projects (that are just duplicating other open source projects) exist for political, not practical reasons.

Reply Parent Score: 2