1 |
Isidore Ducasse <ducasse.isidore@×××××.com> posted |
2 |
20070527131103.770b71c6@Bazaar, excerpted below, on Sun, 27 May 2007 |
3 |
13:11:03 +0200: |
4 |
|
5 |
> I've heard that Sun recently released the Java platform under GPL, and |
6 |
> that all of their softs are going to follow in a near future. |
7 |
|
8 |
Not necessarily (or likely) /all/ their software, but significant parts |
9 |
of it. OpenSolaris is currently CDDL, which /is/ OSI approved as a real |
10 |
"open" license, but was designed in part deliberately to be GPLv2 |
11 |
incompatible. Apparently, they weren't interested in Linux "stealing" |
12 |
their technologies, which they thought would happen if they made it GPLv2 |
13 |
compatible. |
14 |
|
15 |
They ARE considering dual-licensing Solaris under GPLv3, however, which |
16 |
they've been working closely with the FSF on. Of course that's not a |
17 |
given until it's out, but it'd definitely widen the interest base (I for |
18 |
one may well be interested, especially if Linux stays GPLv2 only). |
19 |
|
20 |
Of course Linus and the other kernel devs were originally very much |
21 |
against early GPLv3 drafts. Linus at least has apparently changed his |
22 |
mind with the later ones, but again, we'll have to see, and it would take |
23 |
nearly all of the big contributors current and past agreeing for it to be |
24 |
practical, and even then there'd likely be a period of several years |
25 |
where it was dual licensed v2 and v3 until all those who couldn't be |
26 |
reached or didn't agree could have their v2 code written out of it. |
27 |
Eventually, the v2 side could be dropped, after all the v2 only code was |
28 |
gone. |
29 |
|
30 |
But they have other software as well. Java, however, you are right, |
31 |
GPLv2 is what they've announced, but again, it's taking some time. Much |
32 |
of it is now, but not the complete stack. |
33 |
|
34 |
> I've |
35 |
> synced portage 2 days ago and dev-java/sun-jre-bin is still licensed |
36 |
> against dlj-1.1 . Does anybody know how long it can take to have the |
37 |
> license changed? Will it change at the occasion of a new release or is |
38 |
> it applicable with the current version? Does it mean we'll have a 64-bit |
39 |
> java web browser plugin some day? |
40 |
|
41 |
What Gentoo is doing, from what I've seen based on some of the smaller |
42 |
Java packages, is eliminating the -bin version and switching to a |
43 |
standard (for Gentoo) sources based ebuild. I've not followed Java / |
44 |
that/ closely as it hasn't been open source, and I won't install it until |
45 |
it is, but I've been following the developments here as I come across |
46 |
them. The Gentoo Java devs are working on it, but as I said, I don't |
47 |
believe enough of the entire Java infrastructure has been released as GPL |
48 |
yet to do the entire thing as sources. Even after it has, it'll take |
49 |
several months as experimental ebuilds in the Java overlay (emerge layman |
50 |
and read up on using it, if interested), before it is considered stable |
51 |
enough to release into the main tree, even as ~arch. Then it'll be in |
52 |
~arch for awhile, while any bugs the ~arch users find being worked out, |
53 |
before it makes it to stable. |
54 |
|
55 |
So, I'm not /real/ close to things, talk to devs on the Java herd if you |
56 |
want real detail, but an intelligent guess based on the above that I know |
57 |
is that it'll be several months, likely late this year or early next, |
58 |
before full source based Sun blessed Java is in the main tree, almost |
59 |
certainly before it reaches stable. |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
64 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
65 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
66 |
|
67 |
-- |
68 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |