«

Hi, can anyone tell me if Java is actually open source as the
development kit and compiler are available free?

Thanks,

Nick

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:53:46 -0400, Nicholas Potts wrote:

> Hi, can anyone tell me if Java is actually open source as the
> development kit and compiler are available free?

No. But the JDK from http://java.sun.com/ is indeed free. There actually
is an Open Source implementation of java runtime and class libraries. I
don't know much about them though.

Mike

Nicholas Potts:

>Hi, can anyone tell me if Java is actually open source as the
>development kit and compiler are available free?

The JDK is free, and you can get all the source code (or at least
almost all source code, src.zip for most of the class library, and you
can get more under the Community License).

However, the JDK is not distributed under one of the open source
"change as you like as long as you redistribute your changes" license.

Regards,
Marco
--
Please reply in the newsgroup, not by email!
Java programming tips: http://jiu.sourceforge.net/javatips.html
Other Java pages: http://www.geocities.com/marcoschmidt.geo/java.html

Marco Schmidt <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
> Nicholas Potts:
>
> >Hi, can anyone tell me if Java is actually open source as the
> >development kit and compiler are available free?
>
> The JDK is free, and you can get all the source code (or at least
> almost all source code, src.zip for most of the class library, and you
> can get more under the Community License).
>
> However, the JDK is not distributed under one of the open source
> "change as you like as long as you redistribute your changes" license.

and that is a very good thing, indeed. Sun must still maintain
tight control over the language and JVM specifications. There are
way too many harebrained requests for changes. Just think what
would happen if control was lost to the masses. eek!

xarax wrote:
> Marco Schmidt <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>

>>However, the JDK is not distributed under one of the open source
>>"change as you like as long as you redistribute your changes" license.
>
>
> and that is a very good thing, indeed. Sun must still maintain
> tight control over the language and JVM specifications. There are
> way too many harebrained requests for changes. Just think what
> would happen if control was lost to the masses. eek!

Why? Sun still could maintain control over the language spec. And, if
they released SDK/JRE under OpenSource licence, they'd still have full
control over their own implementation. If some oddball harebrains rather
would use a derived sdk, then what's wrong with that? Either they would
just be a marginal user group, or a major user group. In the latter
case, Sun sure could use the competition, obviously not capable of
understanding and implementing Java users needs, and in the first case,
well, I don't think that would be such a big problem.

As far as I know there is no legal problem implementing a compiler and
runtime from scratch following the Java spec. closely, and there would
be nothing wrong adding and removing features to and from such an
implementation either, the result just wouldn't qualify as Java anymore.

Have a look at the waba/superwaba project. You can use almost any jdk to
program waba programs. You can only use a subset of the java language,
the libraries available aren't those from Sun at all, and your
class-files run on the waba runtime, which is *not* a Java compliant
runtime.

--

"Jon Martin Solaas" <> wrote in message
news:iA18b.2394$...
> xarax wrote:
> > Marco Schmidt <> wrote in message
news:<>. ..
> >
>
> >>However, the JDK is not distributed under one of the open source
> >>"change as you like as long as you redistribute your changes" license.
> >
> >
> > and that is a very good thing, indeed. Sun must still maintain
> > tight control over the language and JVM specifications. There are
> > way too many harebrained requests for changes. Just think what
> > would happen if control was lost to the masses. eek!
>
> Why? Sun still could maintain control over the language spec. And, if
> they released SDK/JRE under OpenSource licence, they'd still have full
> control over their own implementation. If some oddball harebrains rather
> would use a derived sdk, then what's wrong with that? Either they would
> just be a marginal user group, or a major user group.

That's a bad assumption. Micro$oft created a derived SDK that was not
compliant with Sun's and at least at one time was probably the most widely
used VM. I would not call M$ a marginal user group.

> In the latter
> case, Sun sure could use the competition, obviously not capable of
> understanding and implementing Java users needs, and in the first case,
> well, I don't think that would be such a big problem.

That assumes that those deriving it have good intentions. Definitely wasn't
the case with Micro$oft. The issue is that you have a platform you can rely
on and that you don't have to deal with umpteen incompatible versions.

> As far as I know there is no legal problem implementing a compiler and
> runtime from scratch following the Java spec. closely, and there would
> be nothing wrong adding and removing features to and from such an
> implementation either, the result just wouldn't qualify as Java anymore.
>
> Have a look at the waba/superwaba project. You can use almost any jdk to
> program waba programs. You can only use a subset of the java language,
> the libraries available aren't those from Sun at all, and your
> class-files run on the waba runtime, which is *not* a Java compliant
> runtime.

That's right. You can do whatever you want as you don't call it Java
(although you can't use their source code as the basis for your new
product). And SuperWaba does not call itself Java, because legally it can't.

--
Dale King

>>>>> "Dale" == Dale King <> writes:

>> Why? Sun still could maintain control over the language
>> spec. And, if they released SDK/JRE under OpenSource licence,
>> they'd still have full control over their own implementation. If
>> some oddball harebrains rather would use a derived sdk, then
>> what's wrong with that? Either they would just be a marginal user
>> group, or a major user group.

Dale> That's a bad assumption. Micro$oft created a derived SDK that
Dale> was not compliant with Sun's and at least at one time was
Dale> probably the most widely used VM. I would not call M$ a
Dale> marginal user group.

That's because M$ had the biggest user group.

How many people developed for it, and used the non compliant parts
though?

>> In the latter case, Sun sure could use the competition, obviously
>> not capable of understanding and implementing Java users needs,
>> and in the first case, well, I don't think that would be such a
>> big problem.

Dale> That assumes that those deriving it have good
Dale> intentions. Definitely wasn't the case with Micro$oft. The
Dale> issue is that you have a platform you can rely on and that you
Dale> don't have to deal with umpteen incompatible versions.

There is a cost to Sun's attitude as well though.

For instance the nature of Sun's license makes it a pain in the ass to
use on linux systems, because it can't be repackaged.

Phil

On 11 Sep 2003 01:53:46 -0700,
(Nicholas Potts) wrote:

>Hi, can anyone tell me if Java is actually open source as the
>development kit and compiler are available free?

Big misconception you are propagating here:

Open Source != Free

and, to answer your question, the correlary is:

Free != Open Source

Open Source does not have to be free. In fact, there are quite a few
decent open source business models.

U¿ytkownik Bryce (Work) napisa³:
> Big misconception you are propagating here:
>
> Open Source != Free
>
> and, to answer your question, the correlary is:
>
> Free != Open Source
>
> Open Source does not have to be free. In fact, there are quite a few
> decent open source business models.

But which meaning of "free" do you use here?

In Poland we have another problem. "Free (as in speech)" translates to
"wolny", but this word means also "slow" ) So people tend to think that
free software is crappy by definition...
--
Ecce Jezuch
"Did I have the dream, or did the dream have me?"
-N. Peart

In article <bjqmig$6em$>,
Jezuch <> wrote:
>
>In Poland we have another problem. "Free (as in speech)" translates to
>"wolny", but this word means also "slow" ) So people tend to think that
>free software is crappy by definition...

Hehe. The new slogan for the FSF: "Free (as in Saddam Hussein)"

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs