41–50 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the article title asks someone to fork Java .
We comment on the contents, not just the title of the article.
Either way, not a stellar effort.
The project is called Harmony an dis under the Apache banner supported by such JCP members as IBM and many OHA members as well.
Given Oracle's planned moves they will end up killing java on Mobile except for Android and Java on enterprise except for the open source stacks that support Harmony's use..
Also note that the harmony project does use off-shoots of the JVM research IBM invested in as well..
I've noticed a trend. When people sit around and talk about forking a project, it doesn't happen. When someone forks a project, there's a chance it'll take off. You can't convince someone else to fork something. If they had the drive to fork it, they wouldn't need convincing in the first place.
I was watching a video on TED the other day about this phenomenon. If you talk about your goals your brain releases the chemicals that are needed to make you feel that you have actually done something. You "feel good" about doing something even if you haven't actually done it. Having already felt good about your self you have little to no motivation to start doing it. In contrast, if you don't talk about your goals t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So implementing the JVM under the GPL is legal and patent free? A group of companies could get behind an independent JVM already in progress, refine it and back it, without Oracle interference?
No, you only get patent protection if you use Oracle's GPL code (OpenJDK) . If you write your own (e.g. GCJ, Kaffe) there's less protection.
Where is all of this documented? Where is the primary source on patent/licensing dangers of (writing/forking a JVM|creating your own "version" of Java)?
I don't like asking a lot of questions, but I don't know where to look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We comment on the contents, not just the title of the article.
Frankly, "contents" substituting Java for JVM are pretty worthless. Notwithstanding, the article seems to be either confused about what it wants to fork, or it does indeed want to fork Java in addition to the JVM. Either way, not a stellar effort.
What is wrong with http://harmony.apache.org/ ? It is a from scratch implementation of the JVM. And is backed by IBM AFAIK.
What's wrong is that Oracle won't (ever) allow Harmony to be called Java Compatible™, even though it is.
The same can be said of a fork. It will not be allowed to run the Java test suite (I forget the name) and certify itself Java.
Edit : Typo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you only get patent protection if you use Oracle's GPL code (OpenJDK) . If you write your own (e.g. GCJ, Kaffe) there's less protection.
So someone could fork OpenJDK indefinitely without merging and be protected? Where is all of this documented? Where is the primary source on patent/licensing dangers of (writing/forking a JVM|creating your own "version" of Java)? I don't like asking a lot of questions, but I don't know where to look.
Wouldn't a fork be running smack into a patent suit? I confess to not understanding the Java ecosystem at all , but I do know that Oracle just sued Google over their alternative Java implementation...how could a fork avoid this?
If you start with existing GPL code from Oracle, then you have an implicit patent license. But your code has to be under the GPL. If you meet the "Technology Compatibility Kit", then you're an official Java and have a license. Unfortunately Sun was not in the habit of giving access to the TCK to people who were doing things they did not like with Java, and there is no reason to believe that Oracle will be more genero…
In case you haven't realized it, Oracle's intent is to effectively kill open-source Java.