robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5/4/06, *Joshua Nichols* <email@example.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> (The following is shamelessly yanked from the blog post I just made)
> Build most of our Java packages with free (libre) virtual machines and
> free implementations of public APIs.
> Currently, we really only support using a proprietary virtual machine
> (ie sun, blackdown, ibm, etc), because packages are likely to fail for
> various reason with the open ones.
> For many open apis, such as javamail, java activation framework,
> etc, we
> have binary packages of Sun's proprietary implementations. In a
> of cases, there are open implementations. However, our packages
> against and run using the proprietary implementations.
> For reasons why one would want to be using Free Java, see the
> article on
> the Java trap < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html>.
> As for a practical reason, use of proprietary packages from Sun
> and IBM
> can annoying for the end user, because in both cases, it requires
> placing a fetch restriction on the distfiles. To the end user, this
> means that an emerge gets halted until they agree to a license, and
> download the files.
> * Build/run all/most packages using free virtual machines
> * Build/run all/most packages against free implementations of
> * Might want to target specific big name packages, like eclipse,
> azureus, tomcat.
> * Be able to select between different implementations of the
> same apis
> * Work with upstream of packages that use propertary classes from
> the virtual machine (ie com.sun.*, sun.*)
> * Work with upstream of virtual machines and packages when
> don't compile or run with using free java
> * Find and package open implementations of public APIs
> * Lots of Java packages (300+). It is unknown how many will
> need to
> be patched.
> * Upstream might not care about free java
> * Might not be open implementations of all APIs
> why the emphasis on software libre?
And I think you're reading too much into what I said. By libre, I really
mean open source.
> why exclude ASL'd libraries from the effort?
ASL? Do you mean the Apache license? In either case, I don't recall
saying anything about excluding anything.
> why not open source java?
Uh, open source java is EXACTLY what I'm talking about :)
> the ASF has already made considerable progress in creating open source
> clean room implementations for the major java specifications (harmony,
> geronimo, ws). gump and harmony have been working closely with the
> classpath and kaffe teams for a number of years now.
Open source java implementations have actually made tons of progress
everywhere in the past year or so.
> - robert
In the future, be sure to reply on-list.
email@example.com mailing list