Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X

#31

Post by sudonim »

The way people describe themselves in press releases is ridiculous:

"Oracle is the world’s most complete, open and integrated business software and hardware systems company. For more information about Oracle, please visit our Web site at www.oracle.com.

Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork, and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple is reinventing the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and has recently introduced its magical iPad which is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices."

Re: Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X

#32

Post by rbanffy »

ig1 wrote: post #19
rbanffy wrote: post #7

So... Is this good or bad? I know Oracle is giving its back (not to say finger) to the Apache Foundation, but OpenJDK is a GPL-licensed version of the Java stack. Why is it bad (as in why so many complain) that Apple, Oracle and IBM cluster around OpenJDK? Why is the GPL not good enough?

It's not "clean", only JRE that have passed the TCK (Java Compatibility Kit) get the patent waiver, if you modify the JRE and don't get it re-certified then you lose the patent protection. And to get it certified you have to agree to a restrictive licence from Oracle. Sun promised Apache to make the TCK available under an open licence but this never happened. IBM was previously putting pressure on Sun/Oracle to make…

> only JRE that have passed the TCK (Java Compatibility Kit) get the patent waiver,

No. That's not true. As long as your code is derived from OpenJDK (and unavoidably licensed under GPL), you are protected from patent lawsuits from Oracle (for technology contributed to OpenJDK). What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java. You can say "pretty much compatible with that famous VM invented by Sun(TM)" and you are clear.

> And to get it certified you have to agree to a restrictive licence from Oracle

Again, the GPL states you can use OpenJDK for whatever you want. If you decide to run a nuclear reactor with it, you are free to do so (as only the Oracle JDK is licensed under such restrictive terms)

> Sun promised Apache to make the TCK available under an open licence but this never happened.

I understand this is the core of the problem. What is not clear is how this adversely affects users.

> since IBM have switched to OpenJDK, it removes that pressure and makes Java much more closed.

We still have OpenJDK licensed under GPL. How's that closed?

Re: Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X

#33

Post by ugh »

tertius wrote: post #29
GHFigs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit of humility maybe? Why? If you think your product is the best, say so. If you think your product is revolutionary, say so. If you think your product is magical, say so. If you think your product is defining the future, say so. The only reason I can see to criticize a PR footer like that is if you think the company doesn't actually think of itself that way and is just trying to bullshit the reader.

As a side note, I wouldn't call Apple products "magical", maybe to the extent that they make people's money disappear. But that can be explained, somehow, without magic too. I think the focus of his reply should have been on Jobs' giant ego, which is undeniable.

I really don't understand why so many “techy” people freak out as soon as Apple dares to use the word “magical”. That's certainly much better than calling everything “innovative” and it is self explanatory if you don't play stupid.

Apple deserves to be lauded for not using overly boring adjectives once in their boilerplate blurb.

Re: Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X

#34

Post by va_coder »

rbanffy wrote: post #32
ig1 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "clean", only JRE that have passed the TCK (Java Compatibility Kit) get the patent waiver, if you modify the JRE and don't get it re-certified then you lose the patent protection. And to get it certified you have to agree to a restrictive licence from Oracle. Sun promised Apache to make the TCK available under an open licence but this never happened. IBM was previously putting pressure on Sun/Oracle to make…

> only JRE that have passed the TCK (Java Compatibility Kit) get the patent waiver, No. That's not true. As long as your code is derived from OpenJDK (and unavoidably licensed under GPL), you are protected from patent lawsuits from Oracle (for technology contributed to OpenJDK). What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java. You can say "pretty much compatible with…

>"What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java."

There's more to it than that. If I call it Dalvik, like Google did, why would I get a lawsuit?

Edit: I have to say I don't think I even understand what open source means anymore. If I release an open source product, but then say you can only make modifications and sell it if you pass my tests (which I don't make freely available), it's not really open right?

Re: Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X

#35

Post by scott_s »

va_coder wrote: post #34
rbanffy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only JRE that have passed the TCK (Java Compatibility Kit) get the patent waiver, No. That's not true. As long as your code is derived from OpenJDK (and unavoidably licensed under GPL), you are protected from patent lawsuits from Oracle (for technology contributed to OpenJDK). What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java. You can say "pretty much compatible with…

>"What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java." There's more to it than that. If I call it Dalvik, like Google did, why would I get a lawsuit? Edit: I have to say I don't think I even understand what open source means anymore. If I release an open source product, but then say you can only make modifications and sell it if you pass my tests (which I don't make free…

I believe the reason is that it was not derived from anything, such as OpenJDK, that had existing licensing protection.

Re: Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X

#37

Post by rbanffy »

va_coder wrote: post #34
rbanffy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only JRE that have passed the TCK (Java Compatibility Kit) get the patent waiver, No. That's not true. As long as your code is derived from OpenJDK (and unavoidably licensed under GPL), you are protected from patent lawsuits from Oracle (for technology contributed to OpenJDK). What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java. You can say "pretty much compatible with…

>"What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java." There's more to it than that. If I call it Dalvik, like Google did, why would I get a lawsuit? Edit: I have to say I don't think I even understand what open source means anymore. If I release an open source product, but then say you can only make modifications and sell it if you pass my tests (which I don't make free…

> If I release an open source product, but then say you can only make modifications and sell it if you pass my tests (which I don't make freely available), it's not really open right?

I believe your restriction on making derived works conflicts with just about every free and open-source license out there. What Sun did and Oracle does prohibit you from doing is calling something that doesn't pass the non-freely-available TCK by the name Java or implying it's Java-compatible.

As for Dalvik, it's not derived from a project Oracle contributed the said patents. In this way, Dalvik is not protected agains Oracle's lawyers.

Re: Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X

#39

Post by commieneko »

tertius wrote: post #29
GHFigs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit of humility maybe? Why? If you think your product is the best, say so. If you think your product is revolutionary, say so. If you think your product is magical, say so. If you think your product is defining the future, say so. The only reason I can see to criticize a PR footer like that is if you think the company doesn't actually think of itself that way and is just trying to bullshit the reader.

As a side note, I wouldn't call Apple products "magical", maybe to the extent that they make people's money disappear. But that can be explained, somehow, without magic too. I think the focus of his reply should have been on Jobs' giant ego, which is undeniable.

To paraphrase Arthur C.Clarke, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Since most users _don't_ understand the technology they use, it is "magical" to them.

The real question: is it good magic or evil magic?

From a normal person's point of view, what Apple does is, usually, good magic.

Re: Oracle and Apple Announce OpenJDK Project for Mac OS X

#40

Post by RickHull »

ugh wrote: post #33
tertius wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a side note, I wouldn't call Apple products "magical", maybe to the extent that they make people's money disappear. But that can be explained, somehow, without magic too. I think the focus of his reply should have been on Jobs' giant ego, which is undeniable.

I really don't understand why so many “techy” people freak out as soon as Apple dares to use the word “magical”. That's certainly much better than calling everything “innovative” and it is self explanatory if you don't play stupid. Apple deserves to be lauded for not using overly boring adjectives once in their boilerplate blurb.

> Apple deserves to be lauded for not using overly boring adjectives once in their boilerplate blurb.

Plaudits for using hyperbole? Oh laud, gag me with a spoon, please.

Post reply on HN