Java?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hchaudh1 Dec 18, 2008 10:33 AM EDT |
Isn't Java OSS now? |
| tuxchick Dec 18, 2008 11:22 AM EDT |
Actually it's Free software, GPL. |
| dinotrac Dec 18, 2008 11:55 AM EDT |
TC - So the answer is yes, right? |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 18, 2008 12:23 PM EDT |
Dino,Quoting:So the answer is yes, right? Wrong! Come on you are just miffed because you cannot now say it's really not the freest type software. Right? Your buddy Txt. just keeping you on the straight and narrow. No telling what lawlessness that individuals trained as lawyers might do. |
| tuxchick Dec 18, 2008 12:26 PM EDT |
Well dino, there is a difference, and it's sloppy to conflate the two. Rather like "intellectual property", or the assumption that Ubuntu = Linux. I spend my days immersed in tech reporting, which gives nothing but sterling examples of sloppy thinking and misuse of terminology, so I notice it more :) |
| dinotrac Dec 18, 2008 1:01 PM EDT |
Not in this context. The answer is "yes". GPL'd software is Open Source Software. It is possible (and, in fact, there is 1 OSS-approved license used by, I think, 1 program) for an OSS program to not be "free" within the FSF defintion of the word, but, as a practical matter, it doesn't happen. That's because OSS was started as a marketing program for FREE SOFTWARE. Open Source Software may be GPL software, and, I would bet, most of it is. But..it can also be BSD, CDDL, etc. |
| hchaudh1 Dec 18, 2008 1:05 PM EDT |
I don't know a whole lot about software licenses, but I was under the assumption that GPL'ed software is free (freedom) and thus is not proprietary and thus can be packaged with a distro without qualms. The referenced article says that Java is proprietary software. I don't think that is true? Sun has OSS'ed Java. What am I missing? |
| mortenalver Dec 18, 2008 1:36 PM EDT |
There are two versions of Java at this point (well, more than two) - the standard JRE/JDK which is proprietary, and OpenJDK, which is GPL. The OpenJDK contains all parts of the "standard" JDK that have been open sourced, the exceptions being certain parts where there are problems for instance with third parties owning rights. I think the missing parts have been filled in from the Classpath project, so OpenJDK is complete, but could still have compatibility issues with some applications/applets. |
| jezuch Dec 18, 2008 4:09 PM EDT |
Warning!
OpenJDK's license is GPL *plus Classpath Exception*.
This might be relevant to some lawyer, or sth. Keep in mind just in case. [The Classpath Exception, taken from the Classpath project, relaxes some restrictions on linking, because it's not really clear what does "linking" mean in Java] |
| tuxchick Dec 19, 2008 2:07 AM EDT |
Hmph. Giving informative answers is against the TOS ya know, mortenalver and jezuch. |
| jezuch Dec 19, 2008 3:07 AM EDT |
Sorry :) |
| mortenalver Dec 19, 2008 3:40 AM EDT |
Oops... :) |
| hkwint Dec 19, 2008 8:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:Open Source Software may be GPL software, and, I would bet, most of it is. But..it can also be BSD, CDDL, etc You obviously missed Microsofts 'shared source' initiative; which makes large parts of Windows Open Source. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 19, 2008 9:22 AM EDT |
Hans, I don't think Microsoft's shared source licenses were accepted by the OSI, so that's not open source. MS did have one license accepted by OSI but that's not the one they used in their "Shared Source" initiative. "Shared Source" was a joke. It was "look but don't touch, and don't learn from it or we'll sue you". |
| dinotrac Dec 19, 2008 10:41 PM EDT |
Sander - Yes. In fact, one Microsoft license (can't remember which) seemed almost designed to show the OSI folks up as hypocrites -- a genuinely free license from the bad guys. The OSI did the right thing and certified that license (after a few changes), because, well, the idea is free software, not good guy/bad guy. |
| vainrveenr Dec 22, 2008 6:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:Hans, I don't think Microsoft's shared source licenses were accepted by the OSI, so that's not open source. MS did have one license accepted by OSI but that's not the one they used in their "Shared Source" initiative.then Quoting:Yes. In fact, one Microsoft license (can't remember which) seemed almost designed to show the OSI folks up as hypocrites -- a genuinely free license from the bad guys. Actually, an excellent non-trivial example of Bad Guy, Good Guy (which is itself an arguably-effective reversal of the notorious Bad Cop, Good Cop scenario, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-good-cop-bad-cop.htm) In the example brought out here, Bad Guy, Good Guy is distinctly used to obtain more widespread license-acceptance, rather than as a "law enforcement investigatory technique, which might lead to a confession or the arrest of a suspect". Microsoft comes out with a questionable license structure which prohibits "learning and improving" upon sourcecode except in limited situations which it effectively controls. Once a significant number of people become attuned to this ruse, they then put forth their "genuinely free license from the bad guys" and can then proudly trumpet this about in order to attempt to "show the OSI folks up as hypocrites". A fairly typical tactic on the part of Microsoft. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2008 11:00 AM EDT |
Call it how you want it, V., but Microsoft gave the OSI sufficient rope to hang themselves, but cooler heads prevailed. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!