Java problem

Craig White craigwhite at azapple.com
Sat Dec 29 16:44:12 UTC 2007


On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 21:42 -0800, Kam Leo wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2007 8:33 PM, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 22:03 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > > Craig White wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>> Maybe there should be something in /etc/alternatives...
> > > >>> Or maybe no one should have ever shipped an imitation java that doesn't
> > > >>> meet the spec and called it java in the first place.
> > >
> > > > Of course the issue is and has always been Sun's restrictive licensing
> > > > and if it weren't for the 'imitation java' as you call it, Sun might
> > > > never have decided to migrate Java to GPL...but they still aren't
> > > > there...
> > >
> > > Why is the license an issue?  The distribution doesn't have to include
> > > everything to work with it.
> > ----
> > I know you are on CentOS list. You know that Sun requires idemnification
> > from anyone who redistributes their software which is why so few
> > redistribute their software. Then of course, there's the restriction
> > against using it in nuclear plants which apparently is enough to get
> > Fedora/RH to drop the pdftk (F8 users can rebuild from F7 src RPM).
> > ----
> > > OK, there's this thing called the internet, where you can get things
> > > from other places - places that are willing to distribute them.
> > ----
> > yeah...why don't you complain to them?
> > ----
> > >
> > > > Thus without the 'imitation java' (as you call
> > > > it), there wouldn't be a fully functioning OpenOffice.org, and no
> > > > Docbook XSL, no Tomcat, no Eclipse, etc.
> > >
> > > OK, I could live with those not working until I install a java that
> > > meets the official spec.
> > ----
> > OK - good for you. Are you suggesting that Fedora create a bunch more
> > Totem type situations? Are you suggesting that Fedora ship a broken
> > OpenOffice.org? Are you suggesting that the Eclipse environment not work
> > out of the box? Are you suggesting that the whole notion of
> > 'pre-requisite' packages go ignored where Java is concerned?
> >
> > Besides...I'm certain that you have a skill set that would allow you
> > completely remove the gcj version and install the Sun version so I fail
> > to see where you're harmed by the current setup.
> > ----
> > > > Thus with your logic, people would logically go to another distro that
> > > > either embraces restrictive licensed software or pisses on restrictive
> > > > licensing.
> > >
> > > How about one that respects both other companies licenses and their own
> > > users?  As in making Sun java work when installed?
> > ----
> > Isn't that Sun's job? There isn't a Sun java package available from any
> > Fedora package/respin/repository that I am aware of.
> > ----
> > > > So while it may feel useful to bemoan the 'imitation java' aka, GCJ
> > > > version, it provides most of the functionality...and last I checked,
> > > > even the Sun Java '64' couldn't run applets.
> > >
> > > I'm bemoaning calling it java.  If you don't ship a fully conforming
> > > java, don't execute it with the name java.  And isn't the 64-bit applet
> > > problem specific to Linux, not java?
> > ----
> > I don't know about Windows 64...it's not very popular you know and I am
> > not rushing out to get it myself. If Sun's Windows 64 bit version works
> > properly, it would be one of the few software packages that does.
> >
> > Craig
> 
> Stop being so fanboyish and an ingrate. You shout praises for Open
> Office but don't give credit to the donor of the source code. That's
> right, Sun. Without much of the Sun donated code the Linux desktop
> wouldn't be competitive with MS Office.
----
ingrate? fanboyish? I suppose if I appreciate Red Hat's commitment to
open source and unrestricted license software that says something but I
don't think that makes me an ingrate or a fanatic.

Please note that OpenOffice.org (which is what I presume you are
referring to with your reference to MS Office) carries a much different
license than all other Sun software and without a doubt in my mind, led
to the vast community contributions of code which brought OpenOffice.org
up to speed in such a quick time. Clearly the 'Star Office' product that
Sun purchased years ago was a weak competitor to Microsoft Office until
they opened the source code and released it as GPL.

I am quite certain that if/when Sun gets around to releasing their Java
as fully GPL and removing their restrictive licensing terms, Fedora and
Red Hat would gladly adopt it as main stream.

Craig




More information about the users mailing list