Calvin Austin's Blog

Javaone news: Java on Linux the real story

For reasons that date back to the 90s, and which were never meant to cause GNU/Linux a problem (as at the time it wasn't really on the radar), the Java platform has been licensed in such a way that GNU/Linux distributions couldn't carry it. In addition, the Sun-provided installer for GNU/Linux has, to be charitable, sucked.

Now for those with good memories, of course linux was around in the 90's, infact the original license for JDK 1.1 was friendly to many distributions and made many flowers bloom. Things changed with Java 2 and the SCSL license, of course every linux distribution wanted to have Sun Java on their CD and Sun had agreements with Redhat, Suse, Caldera and others. Any of the restrictive terms were due to Suns binary license and no-one else, for example the license click through on download and install was introduced later and enforced on blackdowns distribution. So Sun built the wall, and forced the click-through sucky installer and knew what it did.

"An unprecedented collection of Debian developers, Ubuntu developers, Sun engineers and Sun lawyers has spent months devising a new binary license for the Java platform"

I can't believe it took this much effort, kudos for those 'unprecedented collections' of Debian and Ubuntu developers for waiting, anyone who uses those distributions knows that they have invested effort into virtual packages anyway to handle offline distributions. Like Wei adds, does this mean fedora will be JDK ready, perhaps...if it does, it will be down to the effort of individuals of course, taking Java back to its roots.

Comments

• Hopefully we'll see more and more opensource Java apps shipping with Linux distros once they include Sun's JRE.

  This makes it a real option for opensource developers to consider Java for their desktop apps, knowing that they can get shipped in Linux distro's, alongside Sun's JRE (with Swing).

  I would like to see Netbeans and the SDK shipping in Linux distros. Is the new license for JRE only, and not SDK, i think?

  Since Netbeans provides a great out-the-box experience, for both GUI and web apps (and mobile apps), this would encourage young developers to give Java/Swing/Netbeans a twirl, on their freshly squeezed Ubuntu boxen.

  Hey here's a fun thought to cut through the months of lawyers and stuff. Why don't Sun just GPL Java as FreeCharva, and rigourously protect their "Java" trademark. If IBM, Oracle et al, don't wanna license the real "Java" (as in the branding and certified compatibility), then they can tell their clients that their enterprise products are built on "FreeCharva." Now we all know that companies are very suspicious of "free" things ;) So the licensing royalties for "Java" would still come flowing in for Sun, wouldn't they? If Red Hat run off and fork "FreeCharva" into "JBossCharva" who cares, and why would they do that anyway? Hey I'll blog on this later on my blog.
  

  Posted by: evanx on May 17, 2006 at 12:15 AM

• As I know you and know how much you care about Java on Linux
  I'm a little surprised by your tone here.

  Yes it did take a fair amount of effort. Sun is a big company and
  working a collaboration between a F/LOSS community, a business based around
  Free Software and a large commercial enterprise involved discussion, diplomacy,
  compromise and consensus building. I too wish it could have happened
  sooner.

  I am very pleased at the level of integration that we have achieved
  with these first examples. You know that virtual packages are, at best,
  a workaround to the real solution: the legal and technical solution that
  allows distributions to "do the right thing".

  
  I had no idea that Rich Green's response to Jonathan's question today
  would be, "it's not a question of whether, but a question of how".
  As a fan of Free Software I frankly never expected this day
  to arrive at Sun Microsystems. Even one of our most diligent
  critics, Dalibor Topic, had this reflection about working together.

  
  So, on the contrary, I don't think it's "down to the effort of individuals"...
  rather we have the collective opportunity to move this incredible
  platform forward. I do hope you will add your talents to this quest.

  
  --Tom

  Posted by: tmarble on May 17, 2006 at 12:29 AM

• One nice side effect of this is that there are a large number of free software Java libraries/tools/frameworks as well as open source ones (for those to whom the difference is important). Having Java (easily) available to Linux users is a big plus, as at least some percentage of them will be more willing to try these out, and hopefully, contribute to them. I think Tom is right, though, it's overall a big plus and I'm just glad it's taking place at all. Cheers, Patrick

  Posted by: pdoubleya on May 17, 2006 at 12:46 AM

• Hey Tom. Good to see you here. My comment is primarily aimed that Sun was the company that added the restrictions over the years. That Sun is now reversing most of those restrictions is good news but in Simons blog it was cast as some sort of unfortunate accident things got the way they were...

  A bigger Java on Linux announcement for me would be that Sun finally has a 64bit Java plugin for my laptop!

  Posted by: calvinaustin on May 17, 2006 at 01:38 AM

• Calvin, afaik GNU Classpath's gcjwebplugin works in 64bit mode on amd64-linux.

  cheers,
  dalibor topic

  Posted by: robilad on May 17, 2006 at 02:55 AM

• Tom, regarding the 'how': we've just got 99% of 1.4 APIs done as free software in GNU Classpath, and 90.5 % of 1.5. Since our compatibility test suite, Mauve, is free software as well, it'd be a huge step forward towards open source Java if we could combine it with Sun's test suite to create a larger, free software compatibility test suite to foster the notion of verifiable compatiblity, that users and distributors can use to check compatibility claims.

  I'd like to see if David Herron can get the "Read Only" JCK license suitably modified to allow indepent implementations to actually build and run it, but eventually, I'd like to see us working together on the specifications and test suites, as long as the 'how' of the source for Sun's implementation has not been figured out. Do you think we can work that one out within the next, say, three months?

  cheers,
  dalibor topic

  Posted by: robilad on May 17, 2006 at 03:17 AM

• The problem with Java licenses and Linux isn't the Java licenses (which always allowed the installers to be distributes) but religious fervour on the part of many Linux advocates who want nothing to do with anything that's not "free" in their extremely narrow definition of the term (which effectively is that only things they control are "free").
  As long as Sun doesn't throw away the JLS and compatibillity requirements (which would allow Java's enemies which are plentiful in the Linux zealout camp to fork the platform to destruction) those people will never consider any license Sun can come up with to be sufficiently "free".
  If Java has become less "acceptable" to the Linux crowd over the last decade that has nothing to do with Sun, and everything with the Linux crowd in general (and those who control the platform in specific) becoming ever more hostile towards "big companies" and everything they themselves don't control.
  Their intent has always been to marginalise Java and if possible cause it to disappear in favour of their own preferred languages like C and Python. Their interest in getting Sun to open the license "enough" for them to include JVMs is therefore completely driven by their desire to take control over Java away from Sun and into their own hands, as at present they can't take the steps needed to cause Java to fail (which would among other things require the capability to fork the language spec in order to guarantee a plethora of mutually incompatible versions of the language, thus destroying WORA and the guaranteed compatibility of classfiles over JVMs).

  Posted by: jwenting on May 17, 2006 at 04:12 AM

• jwenting: I think that thowing out the word zealot generally
  does a disservice. Just as I respect other's hair color, political
  leanings or choice of music I respect gamut of opinion
  on software licensing.

  
  I was surprised to find that most of the Debian developers
  at Debconf6 were happy to accept Java into non-free as a result
  of our changes in the DLJ. And one of friends I made -- who
  had said a day earlier that he didn't include non-free in
  his sources.list -- told me he would make an exception for Java.

  
  Dalibor: I can't predict how fast things can progress, but in
  talking with various executives yesterday I got the impression
  there is a sense of urgency. And yes the idea of starting with
  the test suites is a good one.

  
  Calvin: The lack of a 64-bit plugin is RFE# 4.
  After looking into this issue a couple months ago it had become apparent
  (for a variety of non-technical reasons) that this was going to be
  especially difficult. However in light of yesterday's announcement
  I am hopeful this can get done soon.

  Posted by: tmarble on May 17, 2006 at 07:42 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.