Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
Now I have a little bit time, to reply to your comment (I will also write this reply in the forum at http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=18036tstart=0 ). Yeah thanks. Please also include my other replies if you see fit. Done. I think three different OpenSource implementations would be the worst case scenario, if Sun makes its Java OpenSource. Ans I also think, that Suns sees so like I. And I think they want to make it OpenSource, to have _not_ three different implementations. I disagree. Actually there are already quite a couple of (proprietary) implementations of the Java platform which is also fine for Sun, so why would it be bad for Java to have a couple more? The diffrent proprietary implementations are based on Suns Java. So it is unlikly that they are more different to Suns Java, then having a completly new and different implementation. Or to show it with browsers: Safari is also a proprietary browser based on KHTML. But it is more compatible to Konquerer then to other browsers. Well, first thing is, the technical POV is not the only one important to some parties. For example, if Sun would decide to choose to license under GPL, that would be a problem for a reason for some parties to use Classpath or Harmony. Then there are already a couple of VMs that are written to use GNU Classpath and it is probably not trivial to port them to use Sun's class libraries. Then I'm sure there are even some interesting parts in GNU Classpath. I'm thinking about the Gnome/Cairo peers that fit better with common Linux platforms than the Motif based peers that Sun has. A different you only feel if you use AWT. But if you use Swing there isn't much different, which peers are used. I am not sure about GNU Crypto but my feeling is that we cover some areas that are not covered by Sun there (and vice versa of course). In this case a merger would be better, I think. In the future there could also be interesting cooperation, I am think about the AWT/Swing area here, where GNU Classpath could possibly focus on specialized peers and Swing LFs for Gnome and KDE, while Sun focuses more on the core or something similar. Likewise for other areas too, where Classpath and/or Harmony could work one implementing the glue to specific platforms that Sun doesn't want to care about etc etc. Hmmm... but I still think, it would be better to use Suns Java then for other platforms. There is a difference, if you have one program and port it to different platforms or if you use a complete new written version For example there existing NeoOffice, which is a fork of OpenOffice.org. But they are functional the same. But KOffice and OpenOffice.org are _completely_ different. One of the reasons is, that OpenOffice.org and NeoOffice have the most parts the same code. A good comparision of the different Java-implementations would be the situation with the different Browsers. All Internet-Browsers want to show the internet-sides. So all takes the same resources and wants to do the same with it. I also don't think that it's a good idea to have only one browser. I am quite happy that there are a couple of them and that everybody can pick whatever he likes best. I think it's good to have IE, Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror etc all around. The browser situation actually is a good example why having several implementations is a good thing. Think when IE had a marketshare of 95%. This is (arguably was) a time of stagnation, Webdesigners forced to use ugly hacks to make their pages load etc. Having more then one implementation in the market produces an interesting competition and somewhat forces everybody involved to write code that is portable. The direction, which new features browser have to implement, makes the W3C. Since over five years, the W3C have decided, that SVG-files can be shown in browsers. And how SVG files can be interact with JavaScript andf HTML. Firefox have implemented SVG. Would Firefox the only browser, then there would already a lot of SVG-pictures on some sides existing. But now we must wait until the last browser also supports SVG. It is also to mention, that SVG isn't fast to implement. And SVG-viewer and -editors are also different then browser-implementations. So there existing SVG-files, which you can see in Inkscape, but not with Apache Batik. Or with Batik, but not with Firefox. Or with Firefox, but not in KDE (KSVG). Or with KDE and not with GNOME (libsvg or librsvg). Or with GNOME, but not with Inkscape. So, if other browsers are also implementing SVG, there would be SVG-files, which you then also only on one of the browsers can see, but not on the other one. And imaging, then the JCP decide, that SVG will be part of Java. The Harmony people can make use of its Batik. Sun have in its Java-implementation already Apache-code, so for Suns implementation it would also no make problems. But Batik is neither under the GNU Classpath
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
I think three different OpenSource implementations would be the worst case scenario, if Sun makes its Java OpenSource. FWIW, I tend to agree overall. Our experience merging libgcj with classpath was that the merge improved both -- sometimes the libgcj code was better, sometimes the classpath code was better. Parts of the class libraries are platform dependent or worth replacing depending on the VM or can have different implementations with different properties. But, most of the libraries are not like this. In these cases I think the most desirable result is a single implementation. And, there's nothing forcing an all-or-nothing approach; we can do as much or as little makes sense. That said, the details matter; cf the harmony situation. If Sun's terms are acceptable I would consider petitioning the FSF to let us freely merge code back and forth. Whether this will be the case, and whether Sun would be interested in the kind of disruption that this might entail, remains to be seen. Tom
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
theUser BL wrote: And in which part is the GNU Classpath implementation better then Suns implementation? (from the technical point of view, not from the license side) ? You might like to look at http://builder.classpath.org/xml/SAXTest/ which shows the XML SAX API conformance status of the GNU implementation versus Xerces (the parser redistributed by Sun). Until today GNU Classpath makes sence, because it is an OpenSource Java-implementation and Suns Java isn't OpenSource. And it is not only a Java-implementation it is in parts a rewrite of Suns Java. As i know, there is nowhere defined in any book how the ocean-theme looks like. Only the old metal theme is defined at http://java.sun.com/products/jlf/ So in parts GNU Classpath is not only a implementation of what the JCP defines, its a rewrite of that, what Suns have done. Yes. This vexes me greatly, when there is pressure from the community to reproduce a bug-for-bug compatible class library, i.e. that we should try to code to match Sun's implementation instead of coding a good, bug-free implementation of the specification. But, as you point out, in many cases the specification is vague or nonexistent, and people just want it to work and don't care about specs. But until Sun makes its Java implementation OpenSource, then the situation is different. No, I don't think so. So I think, that - if Sun makes its Java OpenSource - it would be a bad thing, if then GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony still exists. So, given that NetBSD exists, is it a bad thing that Linux and OpenSolaris and the Hurd exist? After all it was around long before these upstarts. Surely we should all be working on the One True Operating System™? -- 犬 Chris Burdess They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
Chris Burdess wrote: Yes. This vexes me greatly, when there is pressure from the community to reproduce a bug-for-bug compatible class library, i.e. that we should try to code to match Sun's implementation instead of coding a good, bug-free implementation of the specification. But, as you point out, in many cases the specification is vague or nonexistent, and people just want it to work and don't care about specs. For sure. I have the detailed tests for both our HTML parser and our CORBA implementations. Only part of these tests is committed to Mauve, as the remainder fails tragically with Sun's distribution and is not very desired there. These tests, however, are checking things that MUST work following the official OMG and W3C specifications, and in the case of CORBA they are not invented and written by me alone. I still silently check for regressions against them, despite if somebody else would start actively breaking such functionality, it would be difficult to argue. Under circumstances when near any Sun's bug is a desired behavior, the question in which part Classpath implementation is better may look just inappropriate. I really hope that after open sourcing Sun's java under acceptable license and with several implementations in competition such bugs may finally loose the undeserved status of the unofficial standard. Audrius
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
Hi Roman. Now I have a little bit time, to reply to your comment (I will also write this reply in the forum at http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=18036tstart=0 ). What I'd find best for Java is something like we have in the BSD world. Friendly competing communities, with code flowing freely in all directions. Something similar would be healthy for Java too, having 3 implementations in friendly competetion with code flowing between them as it fits. I think three different OpenSource implementations would be the worst case scenario, if Sun makes its Java OpenSource. Ans I also think, that Suns sees so like I. And I think they want to make it OpenSource, to have _not_ three different implementations. I'd really like to see Sun, Harmony and Classpath developing and improving Java, all in their own ways and using their own methods. And in which part is the GNU Classpath implementation better then Suns implementation? (from the technical point of view, not from the license side) ? Of course, when GNU, Sun and Apache can get together to work on one implementation, that would be great, but very very unlikely. Just as unlikely as a Gnome-KDE merger, or a Linux/*BSD/Hurd merger, etc. You can not compare the GNOME/KDE situation or the Linux/*BSD/HURD/OpenSolaris situation with the Java situation. It is completely different. To want a GNOME/KDE merger is like wanting a Java/.NET merger. The difference is, that a GNOME/KDE merker and a Java-implementations-merger is, that there existing only _one_ GNOME and _one_ KDE. And the programs written for GNOME and KDE is so only written for this one and only implementation. You can not parts of GNOME programs running with KDE-libs and the other way around. A good comparision of the different Java-implementations would be the situation with the different Browsers. All Internet-Browsers want to show the internet-sides. So all takes the same resources and wants to do the same with it. So lets look at the Browser-situation: Ten years ago I tried to create my first homepage. At first it was something simple. Using bbold/b, iitalic/i and other commands like br. Then there comes frames, textfields and so on. But how more complex it is, how more differes that what the InternetExmplorer show and that what Netscape show. Then there comes some gimmiks in Javascript. Here are for example some sides with Javascript programs for the homepage: http://www.ramnip.net/js.html http://www.lipfert-malik.de/webdesign/tutorial/javascript.html Sorry, that I have find at the moment only this two sides. But today it isn't any more so much used like for some years and so there don't existing no longer so much sides about it. What you see on this side is, that there is code where stand after it for all browsers, some code where stand only IE and some code where stand only Netscape. On other sides about JavaScript, there stands how to find out, which browser is used and writes then with if-else commands, for every browser own code, so that at the result, the side was shown with both browsers similar. Important is, that Netscape shows the side on all operating systems likewise. Only the IE looks different. It is still today so, that different browsers show the sides different. In particular if they the homepages using Javascript or other things, which makes the sides a little bit more complex. Additional we have today four different browser-rendering engines: IE, Gecko (Firefox, MozillaSuite/SeaMonkey, ...), KHTML (Konquerer, Safari, ...) and Opera. And it is not so, that only Microsoft with its IE going its own way. The other three browsers show also all the sides different. But the browsers itself showing the side on all operating systems identical. Firefox/Linux shows it like Firefox/Windows. Opera/Windows like Opera/Linux. The webdesigner used and use the least lowest common denominator, so that all internet-sides are looking equal on all browsers. And I have heard, that webdisigner having all browsers installed on its system. Today JavaScript is mentiond in association with Web 2.0 and so. Mostly things are today written on server-side, so that the clients become only for the browsers easy-to-understand-sides. Now have a look at the current situation of Java (only looking at Suns Java): Java consists of a little platform-dependent part including the JVM, AWT, etc and a big platformindependent part including Swing, Java2D and so. There existing programs which which run on Java 1.1, but no longer since Java 1.2. But the downward compatibility have also been in the last years better. The Java-developer can writes its code for Java 5 and it is very likely that it runs also on any other platform with Java 5. They only must now install also Java 6 beta to look if its program running still on the new Java. If not, then sending a bug-report to Sun or changing the own program. Until today GNU
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
Hi Patrick, Now I have a little bit time, to reply to your comment (I will also write this reply in the forum at http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=18036tstart=0 ). Yeah thanks. Please also include my other replies if you see fit. What I'd find best for Java is something like we have in the BSD world. Friendly competing communities, with code flowing freely in all directions. Something similar would be healthy for Java too, having 3 implementations in friendly competetion with code flowing between them as it fits. I think three different OpenSource implementations would be the worst case scenario, if Sun makes its Java OpenSource. Ans I also think, that Suns sees so like I. And I think they want to make it OpenSource, to have _not_ three different implementations. I disagree. Actually there are already quite a couple of (proprietary) implementations of the Java platform which is also fine for Sun, so why would it be bad for Java to have a couple more? I'd really like to see Sun, Harmony and Classpath developing and improving Java, all in their own ways and using their own methods. And in which part is the GNU Classpath implementation better then Suns implementation? (from the technical point of view, not from the license side) ? Well, first thing is, the technical POV is not the only one important to some parties. For example, if Sun would decide to choose to license under GPL, that would be a problem for a reason for some parties to use Classpath or Harmony. Then there are already a couple of VMs that are written to use GNU Classpath and it is probably not trivial to port them to use Sun's class libraries. Then I'm sure there are even some interesting parts in GNU Classpath. I'm thinking about the Gnome/Cairo peers that fit better with common Linux platforms than the Motif based peers that Sun has. I am not sure about GNU Crypto but my feeling is that we cover some areas that are not covered by Sun there (and vice versa of course). In the future there could also be interesting cooperation, I am think about the AWT/Swing area here, where GNU Classpath could possibly focus on specialized peers and Swing LFs for Gnome and KDE, while Sun focuses more on the core or something similar. Likewise for other areas too, where Classpath and/or Harmony could work one implementing the glue to specific platforms that Sun doesn't want to care about etc etc. Of course, when GNU, Sun and Apache can get together to work on one implementation, that would be great, but very very unlikely. Just as unlikely as a Gnome-KDE merger, or a Linux/*BSD/Hurd merger, etc. You can not compare the GNOME/KDE situation or the Linux/*BSD/HURD/OpenSolaris situation with the Java situation. It is completely different. To want a GNOME/KDE merger is like wanting a Java/.NET merger. Ok agreed. But the comparison still holds for the different BSDs, which are all BSD kernels/OSes with different focus. A good comparision of the different Java-implementations would be the situation with the different Browsers. All Internet-Browsers want to show the internet-sides. So all takes the same resources and wants to do the same with it. I also don't think that it's a good idea to have only one browser. I am quite happy that there are a couple of them and that everybody can pick whatever he likes best. I think it's good to have IE, Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror etc all around. The browser situation actually is a good example why having several implementations is a good thing. Think when IE had a marketshare of 95%. This is (arguably was) a time of stagnation, Webdesigners forced to use ugly hacks to make their pages load etc. Having more then one implementation in the market produces an interesting competition and somewhat forces everybody involved to write code that is portable. The very same thing holds true for Java and actually we already see the bad effects of the dominance of the Sun implementation, which is that many developers write their code against undocumented API, against Sun specific bugs etc etc. That wouldn't be possible when we had several implementations sharing the market equally. I thinnk what you and Sun (and many other devlopers) actually care about is not having several implementations of the platform (which we already have, even outside of the Sun/GNU/Apache world), but the problem of keeping them together and most importantly _compatible_. That means that a program written against one implementation should run on other implementations too. (given that the program doesn't use non-public API and doesn't make use of bugs/special behaviour of one impl). In order to avoid that, Sun would need to make the TCK more open. I think this has already been said and I don't felt the need to repeat this. So what I think would be helpful for Java, Sun, and the GNU and Apache community is 1) a sane license to allow cooperation and code exchange and 2)
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
And in which part is the GNU Classpath implementation better then Suns implementation? (from the technical point of view, not from the license side) ? Grab the CORBA COST testing suite from SourceForge and try on Sun's implementation. This mean alone helps against this kind of pride tremendously. And why do you think it is difficult for us to write more comprehensive documentation than the plain whitespace, like in your org.omg.CORBA_2_3 javadoc? Well, there are talks to drop OMG classes entirely as not very useful, but as long as they are present, our version is at least normally documented... Audrius
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
Il giorno mar, 05/09/2006 alle 18.46 +, theUser BL ha scritto: I think three different OpenSource implementations would be the worst case scenario, if Sun makes its Java OpenSource. Ans I also think, that Suns sees so like I. And I think they want to make it OpenSource, to have _not_ three different implementations. Hi! My own opinions follow. The different implementation would not be that bad, as they help to remove fictitious barriers. There are examples in which we have to follow bugs in the RI otherwise we would have not the same behaviour (it's a bug or a feature, then?). We would eventually focus on other things, as well. Gcj does native compilation of java code. Cacao would be a good candidate to fit into the small devices market (think about Nokia or Motorola, we would finally have Java on the 770, for example). This is not that bad, after all. Why we are not done that already? Because with Sun Java (we talk about an implementation, here) being Open Source, the whole game would now be official. Why Sun want to Open Source Java with a GPL compatible (at least, a community compatible) license? Just look at .Net and Mono. With m$ windoze that is a complete application server (!) for .Net. What is the point to have Java, then? It would became just another technology in few years... We could give it a better integration in our environments, which is where real and serious development is done (i.e. server market, distributed applications, grid computing, it wasn't the net the computer?). We could integrate it and make it a standard... And in which part is the GNU Classpath implementation better then Suns implementation? (from the technical point of view, not from the license side) ? From a technical point of view? Roman replied to that already, just take a look at our Gnome/Cairo integration, or give a try to my preferences backend, just to say what we are doing in the desktop area. I would not call this better then Sun, but sure is what it was needed and never come. You can not compare the GNOME/KDE situation or the Linux/*BSD/HURD/OpenSolaris situation with the Java situation. It is completely different. To want a GNOME/KDE merger is like wanting a Java/.NET merger. We have this. In the desktop area it is called freedesktop. This is what allows me to use kopete, k3b and amarok under gnome. This allow me to use services like dbus. In the Linux/*BSD/HURD/OpenSolaris is a set of specifications, like Posix (just to make a name out of the heap, I'm a old school boy). In the .Net/Java world there is project Tango (the official project) or IKVM (more or less, run Java on top of .Net). So lets look at the Browser-situation: [...] Just to make it short, this is what a standard is made for. All the problems with the web are when you don't follow the standards, i.e. when you don't run you site under tidy. Until today GNU Classpath makes sence, because it is an OpenSource Java-implementation and Suns Java isn't OpenSource. Remember that we are talking about _one_ implementation. So in parts GNU Classpath is not only a implementation of what the JCP defines, its a rewrite of that, what Suns have done. To be compatible. So where is the fear about having different implementations? IBM java and BEA java are also based on Sun Java code, to be compatible. In what we would be different? But until Sun makes its Java implementation OpenSource, then the situation is different. The advantage of GNU Classpath over Suns Java is the license. After Suns Java is OpenSource, this advantage no longer exists. The advantage of [Free JVM] + Classpath over Sun Java is that Classpath is designed from the ground up to be part of a free os, but can be ported easily to virtual everything. An additional problem would be that, what already with the browsers exists. Developer would try its programs not only on Suns implementation, they also must try it with GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony --- write once, test thrice. Ok, so why care about writing programs in java that need to be run on OSX, Linux and Windows? With different laf? Why care of writing in java at all, if the 90% pc of the planet use Windows that has already .Net and VB? Are you trying to say that you never write a program in java and test it on different platform _and_ java implementations (I usually test it at _least_ under java 1.4.2 and 1.5, and even, sure, Classpath, unless I need special features like generics, of course)? Said that, I think that the very first thing we will do will be port, to Sun Java, freetype and the gtk peer, to free it even more. Do you think this is a bad thing? It isn't enough, that the JCP exists and defindes how Java have to look like. For the web existing also the W3C and the browser-engines are all different. Until a special point all three Java-implementations will be equal. But especially if new things would be implemented, it would inhibits the evolution
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
Hi Patrick, On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 13:11 +, theUser BL wrote: Have a look at http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=18036tstart=0 there I have written a qustion at Mark and other developers. It would be nice and I would be happy, if you answer it. Seems you need to have to register for some sort of account on that site to post there, but feel free to quote or redistribute my response if you want. I cannot possibly hope to speak for all GNU Classpath developers since there are just too many and GNU Classpath is really a community of communities, lots of individuals, organizations and projects working together for various reasons. But I think you are right that we are pretty flexible and accommodating. The common theme in the last 8 years has been cooperation and respect for each others work. This also extends to licenses, anything upward compatible with the GPL seems fine with the community. So you are also right that either the GNU Classpath license, GPL plus some exception, GPLv2 or v3, LGPL, BSD or MIT/X would all encourage cooperation between groups. Non-GPL compatible licenses seem to fragment the community and nobody wants to see an incompatible, proprietary fork of java. Sun has in the past chosen to use and create licenses like SISSL and CDDL, which some say are explicitly designed to be GPL-incompatible so as to not work together with the larger GNU/Linux community. Lets hope they are sincere in wanting to work with the existing communities. As soon as there is code available under a friendly license I am sure we will see some sort of cooperation between the communities. But no code is available atm, no license has been chosen and it isn't clear whether Sun needs or wants help from the community with code that we can provide for them to create a large free software platform together. Cheers, Mark
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
Hi Patrick. On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 13:11 +, theUser BL wrote: Have a look at http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=18036tstart=0 there I have written a qustion at Mark and other developers. IMO, it is not necessary and feasible to have The One OSS/F Java implementation. That's not how the Free Software model has worked in the past and I see no reason why it would in the future and for Java. Just look at the kernels, desktops, editors, etc etc, where there's always the question 'why not pull forces together and work on The One implementation'. Easy answer, there's lots of different people and groups involved in free software development with different goals and requirements, different development models, different ideals etc etc. And really, I think the world would not be any better with only one implementation of them all. AFAICS, it's apparent the having more than one implementation is better in most cases. What I'd find best for Java is something like we have in the BSD world. Friendly competing communities, with code flowing freely in all directions. Something similar would be healthy for Java too, having 3 implementations in friendly competetion with code flowing between them as it fits. Of course, the basic requirements for this is that all 3 licenses allow such a scenario. It would be sad if there's only 1 or 2 of the implementations 'inside' and the other(s) 'outside' of the Java community. I'd really like to see Sun, Harmony and Classpath developing and improving Java, all in their own ways and using their own methods. This could allow one party to focus on their stuff and include other pieces from other parties. Of course, when GNU, Sun and Apache can get together to work on one implementation, that would be great, but very very unlikely. Just as unlikely as a Gnome-KDE merger, or a Linux/*BSD/Hurd merger, etc. Cheers, Roman
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
Seems you need to have to register for some sort of account on that site to post there, but feel free to quote or redistribute my response if you want. Yes. I have now posted also your answer in this forum (and this reply). Sun has in the past chosen to use and create licenses like SISSL and CDDL, which some say are explicitly designed to be GPL-incompatible so as to not work together with the larger GNU/Linux community. Lets hope they are sincere in wanting to work with the existing communities. As soon as there is code available under a friendly license I am sure we will see some sort of cooperation between the communities. But no code is available atm, no license has been chosen and it isn't clear whether Sun needs or wants help from the community with code that we can provide for them to create a large free software platform together. You are right, at the moment there is no JDK-source published by Sun. But that is also the reason, why I write posts like this. At http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2162306/first-open-source-java-promised stands, that Sun published the first code in the next month. And when they publish the code, they have decided, which license they want to use (at fiirst only for javac and the hotspot-compiler). Its the decision of Sun, how the license of its Java look like. But at the moment it seems, that they want to bring all OpenSource Java communities together. I fear, that Sun published in the next month the first codes under a license, for which they are have decided itself. And later GNU Classpath people or Apache Harmony people say: Bad license-decision. It have been more a license like ..., but the code under this license, we will never use and never work on. All things have its time. And the time where the license of Suns Java will be decided is _before_ it will be published. And thanks for the answer. David Gilbert have also answered in the forum. I hope your comments helps Sun to find the right license. Greatings theuserbl
Re: A question @Mark Wilaard (and other developer)
Interesting quote about the CDDL from /.: quote Not to worry. Firefox is available under GPL. MPL was never widely used outside of Mozilla, and that chiefly in the period before Mozilla was widely used. At that, it's a better license than the CDDL. The CDDL specificly allows distribution of binaries that depend on proprietary licenses of various forms. One of the forms would make the source code visible, and not clearly warn users that it was dependant on having licensed certain software patents...i.e., that the end-users were liable if they didn't properly license the patents required to use the software, and the company could know about it and not warn you. The MPL protected against that. The CDDL removed that protection. So, I ask myself, *why* would Sun make such a change? (I asked Sun, too. They never responded...which doesn't prove anything.) /quote http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=195728cid=16039849 So maybe Sun can take this opportunity to address Software Patents surrounding Java? David Fu. Hi Patrick, On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 13:11 +, theUser BL wrote: Have a look at http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=18036tstart=0 there I have written a qustion at Mark and other developers. It would be nice and I would be happy, if you answer it. Seems you need to have to register for some sort of account on that site to post there, but feel free to quote or redistribute my response if you want. I cannot possibly hope to speak for all GNU Classpath developers since there are just too many and GNU Classpath is really a community of communities, lots of individuals, organizations and projects working together for various reasons. But I think you are right that we are pretty flexible and accommodating. The common theme in the last 8 years has been cooperation and respect for each others work. This also extends to licenses, anything upward compatible with the GPL seems fine with the community. So you are also right that either the GNU Classpath license, GPL plus some exception, GPLv2 or v3, LGPL, BSD or MIT/X would all encourage cooperation between groups. Non-GPL compatible licenses seem to fragment the community and nobody wants to see an incompatible, proprietary fork of java. Sun has in the past chosen to use and create licenses like SISSL and CDDL, which some say are explicitly designed to be GPL-incompatible so as to not work together with the larger GNU/Linux community. Lets hope they are sincere in wanting to work with the existing communities. As soon as there is code available under a friendly license I am sure we will see some sort of cooperation between the communities. But no code is available atm, no license has been chosen and it isn't clear whether Sun needs or wants help from the community with code that we can provide for them to create a large free software platform together. Cheers, Mark
