Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Mathias Bauer]

Shawn McDermott wrote:
> 
> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>> Shawn McDermott wrote:
>> 
> [snip]
>> 
>>>I have installed gcj and I am playing around with it.  so far 1.9.100 
>>>does not run 'out of the box' with gcj.
>> 
>> 
>> That means that there is still something to do. :-)
>> But gcj is not the only way. There are other projects we could try, and
>> the option to provide non-Java implementations as replacements for the
>> current Java based ones is also an option.
>> [snip]
>> Best regards,
>> Mathias
>> 
> 
> Mathias,
> 
> What can I do to help?  I have gone as far as I can by just installing 
> 1.9.100 and gcj and trying to run them together.

I don't work on the gcj "port" by myself. AFAIK the most active
developer working on this is Caolan McNamarra (cmc).

Best regards,
Mathias

-- 
Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead
Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Mathias Bauer]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Mathias Bauer wrote:
> 
>> So we invested quite some time for the JRE plugin framework solely(!) to
>> support the integration of other JREs than the one we usually ship, and
>> we did that only to support free[TM] ones. I think this pure fact should
>> convince people that we are taking this serious and that we are
>> interested in a good cooperation with developers that lean towards the
>> free[TM] software movement.
> 
> Yes. I think that with the above, the OOo developers are doing well, and 
> now we need to "market" this better. I've been responding to a lot of 
> questions on Newsroge, LinuxToday and elswhere, and I'll try to put 
> together some sort of Java FAQ page setting the record straight.

Many thanks to you and Scott for representing us in all these
discussions! This is very important for the project, at least that's my
personal opinion.

>> The rant I'm argueing against is the demonization of Java in general. I
>> think *this* should stop. Even the guru (or pope if you prefer) of the
>> free[TM] software movement is not against using Java - if the code runs
>> with a free[TM] JRE. And we are willing to support that.
> 
> Which, incidentally, means that the FSF "pope" should not be demonized 
> either (I'm not saying you did, but other people do). He's not really an 
> unreasonable person, as shown just now.

Yes, he is very respectable person who has a lot of interesting opinions
and - as our example shows - is open for arguments.

Best regards,
Mathias

-- 
Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead
Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Daniel Carrera]

Mathias Bauer wrote:
So we invested quite some time for the JRE plugin framework solely(!) to
support the integration of other JREs than the one we usually ship, and
we did that only to support free[TM] ones. I think this pure fact should
convince people that we are taking this serious and that we are
interested in a good cooperation with developers that lean towards the
free[TM] software movement.
Yes. I think that with the above, the OOo developers are doing well, and 
now we need to "market" this better. I've been responding to a lot of 
questions on Newsroge, LinuxToday and elswhere, and I'll try to put 
together some sort of Java FAQ page setting the record straight.


The rant I'm argueing against is the demonization of Java in general. I
think *this* should stop. Even the guru (or pope if you prefer) of the
free[TM] software movement is not against using Java - if the code runs
with a free[TM] JRE. And we are willing to support that.
Which, incidentally, means that the FSF "pope" should not be demonized 
either (I'm not saying you did, but other people do). He's not really an 
unreasonable person, as shown just now.

OpenOffice.org is an OpenSource project. And instead of tearing each
other apart the OpenSource projects and their developers should find
ways to cooperate. It shouldn't be as in "Life Of Brian" where each
liberation army sees the other ones as their biggest enemies - and not
the Roman Empire. ;-)
:-)
Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Shawn McDermott]

Mathias Bauer wrote:
Shawn McDermott wrote:
[snip]

I have installed gcj and I am playing around with it.  so far 1.9.100 
does not run 'out of the box' with gcj.

That means that there is still something to do. :-)
But gcj is not the only way. There are other projects we could try, and
the option to provide non-Java implementations as replacements for the
current Java based ones is also an option.
[snip]
Best regards,
Mathias
Mathias,
What can I do to help?  I have gone as far as I can by just installing 
1.9.100 and gcj and trying to run them together.

Shawn
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Mathias Bauer]

Shawn McDermott wrote:

> amen!  The rant is confusing to a lot of people.  The statement that 
> sun's jre isn't free is very confusing to the masses.  I have been 
> developing using java for several years and feel that this argument is a 
> rediculous one.  However, I do think that getting other jre's up to 
> speed is a good thing.

The confusion arises because the FSF has a very strict definition of
"free" - they differentiate between "free" and "free[TM]". I use "[TM]"
to show where I mean "free" as defined by FSF and not as the average
user (or developer) understands. ;-)

To avoid further confusion we should be exact: in the definition of the
FSF the Sun JRE is *not* free[TM] and we should respect that.

So we invested quite some time for the JRE plugin framework solely(!) to
support the integration of other JREs than the one we usually ship, and
we did that only to support free[TM] ones. I think this pure fact should
convince people that we are taking this serious and that we are
interested in a good cooperation with developers that lean towards the
free[TM] software movement.

The rant I'm argueing against is the demonization of Java in general. I
think *this* should stop. Even the guru (or pope if you prefer) of the
free[TM] software movement is not against using Java - if the code runs
with a free[TM] JRE. And we are willing to support that.

> I have installed gcj and I am playing around with it.  so far 1.9.100 
> does not run 'out of the box' with gcj.

That means that there is still something to do. :-)
But gcj is not the only way. There are other projects we could try, and
the option to provide non-Java implementations as replacements for the
current Java based ones is also an option.

I still find it accetable if some parts of OOo remain that *currently*
don't run in a free[TM] environment. We should wait and see what we can
achieve in the next time. I'm sure this way a free[TM] OpenOffice.org
package can be achieved faster than by forking.

OpenOffice.org is an OpenSource project. And instead of tearing each
other apart the OpenSource projects and their developers should find
ways to cooperate. It shouldn't be as in "Life Of Brian" where each
liberation army sees the other ones as their biggest enemies - and not
the Roman Empire. ;-)

Best regards,
Mathias

-- 
Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead
Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Daniel Carrera]

Mathias Bauer wrote:
That's nice to read. Scott Carr had suggested this in an e-mail he sent
to RMS (thanks to Scott!).
Yeah, thanks Scott!
It makes me happy to hear that pragmatism is more widespread than it
could be expected from the statement that started this discussion.
It's easy to forget. RMS is not an unreasonable person (some people who 
claim to follow him might be, but let's not blame him for that). He's 
fully pragmatic when trying to achieve goals he deems important. Though 
you might disagree with his judgement on what's important.

and for everybody else:
please stop the anti-Java rant.
Not everyone who disapproves of Java is just ranting. Some have solid 
reasons for specific concerns that involve Java in some way or another.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Shawn McDermott]

Mathias Bauer wrote:
Shawn McDermott wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

Resent-From: debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org
From: Bruce Byfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 8, 2005 9:26:07 PM EDT
To: debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org
Subject: FSF to fork OOo over java
See:
http://www.fsf.org/news/open-office-java.html
I'm planning to follow up on this news in an article for Newsforge. Does
anybody have any comments they would like to make?
I had an interesting conversation with Richard Stallman.  seems he is 
backing off of the fork idea.  Seems he has made the decision to help 
OOo work with a 'free' java implementation rather than fork OOo.  I 
think this is the better way to go, and hopefully he will continue down 
this path rather than a fork.

That's nice to read. Scott Carr had suggested this in an e-mail he sent
to RMS (thanks to Scott!). And RMS was clear in his answer that he
doesn't have any problems with Java in general - he just wants to have
the code running on a free[TM] RE. Obviously he didn't know about the
JRE framework we have created in OOo to allow pluging in any Java RE
that fulfils some basic criteria (that BTW gcj matches).
yes, this is a much more productive route.
It makes me happy to hear that pragmatism is more widespread than it
could be expected from the statement that started this discussion.
OTOH it also shows me that we should emphasize our efforts regarding
JREs a little bit more. That means for the side of the OOo "core"
developers:
help integrating other JREs and be more careful in trying to avoid
problematic Java classes and *make this known*
for other (OOo) developers interested in a "free software only" environment:
work on a free JRE (f.e. gcj) and/or provide non-Java replacements for
Java code in OOo if preferred
and for everybody else:
please stop the anti-Java rant.
>
> Best regards,
> Mathias
>
amen!  The rant is confusing to a lot of people.  The statement that 
sun's jre isn't free is very confusing to the masses.  I have been 
developing using java for several years and feel that this argument is a 
rediculous one.  However, I do think that getting other jre's up to 
speed is a good thing.

I have installed gcj and I am playing around with it.  so far 1.9.100 
does not run 'out of the box' with gcj.

Regards,
Shawn
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Mathias Bauer]

Shawn McDermott wrote:

>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> Resent-From: debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org
>>> From: Bruce Byfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: May 8, 2005 9:26:07 PM EDT
>>> To: debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org
>>> Subject: FSF to fork OOo over java
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> http://www.fsf.org/news/open-office-java.html
>>>
>>> I'm planning to follow up on this news in an article for Newsforge. Does
>>> anybody have any comments they would like to make?
> 
> I had an interesting conversation with Richard Stallman.  seems he is 
> backing off of the fork idea.  Seems he has made the decision to help 
> OOo work with a 'free' java implementation rather than fork OOo.  I 
> think this is the better way to go, and hopefully he will continue down 
> this path rather than a fork.

That's nice to read. Scott Carr had suggested this in an e-mail he sent
to RMS (thanks to Scott!). And RMS was clear in his answer that he
doesn't have any problems with Java in general - he just wants to have
the code running on a free[TM] RE. Obviously he didn't know about the
JRE framework we have created in OOo to allow pluging in any Java RE
that fulfils some basic criteria (that BTW gcj matches).

It makes me happy to hear that pragmatism is more widespread than it
could be expected from the statement that started this discussion.

OTOH it also shows me that we should emphasize our efforts regarding
JREs a little bit more. That means for the side of the OOo "core"
developers:

help integrating other JREs and be more careful in trying to avoid
problematic Java classes and *make this known*

for other (OOo) developers interested in a "free software only" environment:

work on a free JRE (f.e. gcj) and/or provide non-Java replacements for
Java code in OOo if preferred

and for everybody else:

please stop the anti-Java rant.

Best regards,
Mathias

-- 
Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead
Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Shawn McDermott]

Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
Hi,
I thought people might be interested in this link.  It seems the RMS 
wants to fork OpenOffice.org due to its reliance on JDK.

Thoughts,
Kevin
Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org
From: Bruce Byfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 8, 2005 9:26:07 PM EDT
To: debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org
Subject: FSF to fork OOo over java
See:
http://www.fsf.org/news/open-office-java.html
I'm planning to follow up on this news in an article for Newsforge. Does
anybody have any comments they would like to make?
I had an interesting conversation with Richard Stallman.  seems he is 
backing off of the fork idea.  Seems he has made the decision to help 
OOo work with a 'free' java implementation rather than fork OOo.  I 
think this is the better way to go, and hopefully he will continue down 
this path rather than a fork.

regards,
shawn
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[eric.bachard]

Hi again Sophie :-)
Sorry for the long link I don't know how to reduce it.
   ?
Kind regards,
eric

--
eric bachard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Francophone OpenOffice.org Commmunity developer (Linux PPC /  Mac OS X / 
X11)
See : 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Daniel Carrera]

Sophie Gautier wrote:
As I havn't seen this link pointed yet here, may be you'll be interested 
in this initiative called Apache Harmony

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200505.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Here's a bit more:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3503666
Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Sophie Gautier]

Hi all,
Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
Hi,
I thought people might be interested in this link.  It seems the RMS 
wants to fork OpenOffice.org due to its reliance on JDK.
As I havn't seen this link pointed yet here, may be you'll be interested 
in this initiative called Apache Harmony

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200505.mbox/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
Sorry for the long link I don't know how to reduce it.
Kind regards
Sophie
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Mathias Bauer]

Daniel Carrera wrote:

> Someone just informed me off-list that this email could be taken the 
> wrong way. I'd like to clarify that what I mean to say is "let's not 
> dwell on this". Personally, I don't think that a fork would be 
> successful, but what I was trying to say is that we shouldn't make our 
> lives difficult by dwelling about what RMS might have in mind. Just let 
> him do whatever. This doesn't have to be a big deal if we don't make it one.

I also don't believe in the success of such a fork - and I don't see the
point in it.

They would be better off just rewriting the stuff that depends on Java
and contribute it to the main code base. If their code had the same
quality than the existing one it could replace the Java code that
obviously bothers them. And I'm sure that developers capable of
maintaining a complete fork should be able to deliver the necessary
quality, and after that they don't need to maintain the whole code base,
only "their" parts (but maybe even not all of it).

If these contributions where rejected they still could create a fork
using it. If people don't consider a contribution first I think they
have other reasons for the fork and the Java thing is only an excuse.
Maybe it's the missing intention or ability to support platform
independent development (many free developers only care for Linux, and
many "free" developers only for their special breed)? Maybe it's the
JCA? But YMMV, it's only my personal opinion.

As repeatedly mentioned on several mailing lists, Java implementations
in OOo wheren't carried out in Java "just because" - usually Java was
either the easiest or the cheapest way or there have been other good
reasons for the developers. Believe it or not, it's easier to find god
Java developers than to find good C++ developers, especially for a
platform independent application as OOo.

If other developers helped us here we could remove more and more Java code!

Of course the way done by Caolon (gcj) should be sufficient also.

Best regards,
Mathias

-- 
Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead
Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Vy Ho]

Rene Engelhard wrote:
This is another case. JBoss is a Java app. It would be better to make it
work with free JDKs (does it?, no idea) but it's still a Java servlet so
it's obvious it needs Java.
Whereas OpenOffice.org is a Office productivity suite which has some
important functionality written in Java (XML filters, ...) and even some core
stuff (Database, ...)?
Why should using a non-free Java which is not available sometimes (see
below) help here?
 

It would be good for OOo to work with as many JVM, JRE as possible.  No 
question about that.  So maybe get GCJ and others to work with OOo.

And we are not talking about Java itself. We want a free Java. We want a
OOo which works with free Java. What RMS thinks may be different,
though... 
 

I want a free Java too.  But my "free" Java maybe different from your 
point of view.  and I am pretty sure
not the same as RMS.

 

property.  Create one, not asking Sun to give it out free.
   

Ah. With your argument they should close-source OOo, too? Or have never
open-sourced it? Because that was giving most of the StarOffice IP out?
Wow. What a nice argument
 

That is not how I see it.  Please re-read my message.  Freedom and 
liberty are important here.  People want to have freedom to do things, 
and so Sun. 
They choose to open source OOo. Thanks to them.  They choose to keep 
Java how it is right now, good for them (with respect to liberty).  Good 
thing they're not under a communist or some regime that would take away 
their property without their consent, or force them under some kind of 
influence that they don't have control over.

Anyway, there is free java. but Sun does regularily break OpenOffice.org
to not build with free JDKs (by using sun.misc.* for example, which no
free JDK implements - of course not, and is not even recommended for use
by Sun itself).
 

Good point.  That's not "Java" then.  It's rather some library written 
in Java.  Because Java is not just code, but also standard.  If it's 
outside of published standard, and not opened sourced, then its some 
closed stuff that attach to OOo.  This is entirely different issue, 
which should be addressed.

But I wrote RMS today that gcj/gij *basically* works for building (if you
disable helpcontent and patch a sun.misc.* using place) - not for
runtime, though. Both is necessary for free GNU/Linux distributions.
Debian and Defore for example are *not* allowed to use non-free stuff
for building packages for their main distribution...
 

I wonder who decide *not* allow to use non-free stuff on Debian.  If 
it's the Debian admin, then why they have the liberty to make that 
policy, and Sun cannot make something like *not* allow anything else 
other than Java to be used.  Well, you say they can do so, but people 
will fork because they can too.  Good point.  But it also implies that 
another option is to fork Debian to *allow* this to happen.  Obviously, 
"freedom" here has a high cost: cannot use non-free stuff.  If medical 
and hospital has to follow this rule, I wouldn't have survive to this day.

And well, Suns/Blackdowns Java is a portability nightmare. There are many
platforms without a suitable Java. What to do with them? Let them in the
cold? Without a Office suite / a integrated databse module / the XML filters?
 

Good point.  However, would you think that if I like Java so much, and I 
decide to write an open source office suit, or whatever software for 
that matter in Java.Would this be a real bad idea if taking open 
source software community as a whole into consideration?  I wonder how 
many piece of softwares that were written just for Windows and open 
source.  Thanks to them!  This shows if open source community get more 
powerful, it would have its fangs exposed and forcing idealism on some 
commercial software.  I believe both in open source and closed source.  
Want open source and freedom?  Why not make it public domain?  I call 
that freedom.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

vy.ho wrote:
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 
> >
> >If they want to spend their time forking JBoss, I'm not going to lose 
> >any sleep over it. Let them be.
> >
> JBoss is just an example of their argument.  Forking is fine with me too 
> on open source stuff.  However, the reason behind it ("because it runs 
> on Java") does not sound right to me.

This is not the argument here. The argument here is the *non-freeness*
of it. It still needs a non-free JRE to run important stuff

> equivalent of theft, I think).  I also didn't mean to go offtopic here, 
> but the guy mention the whole reason behind this thing is a none-free 
> Java.  So, there's more than 1 way to skin a cat.  You can fork OOo to 
> make it not depend on Java, or you can write an implementation of Java, 
> or just accept it.  Was it a problem in the first place?

See my other reply.

Regards,

Rene
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCf9kE+FmQsCSK63MRAnhmAJ4s/gi5nOCIsdztAvP8uJT7Y1fldgCfWBHt
vQm1rcw6Fn81fSvs2/lJwQQ=
=Iqmz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

vy.ho wrote:
^
BTW: For me to regard you as serious you probably should enter a
real name in the appropriate field in your mailer. Thanks.

> Should they fork JBoss because it runs on none-free Java too?  If they 

This is another case. JBoss is a Java app. It would be better to make it
work with free JDKs (does it?, no idea) but it's still a Java servlet so
it's obvious it needs Java.

Whereas OpenOffice.org is a Office productivity suite which has some
important functionality written in Java (XML filters, ...) and even some core
stuff (Database, ...)?
Why should using a non-free Java which is not available sometimes (see
below) help here?

> want a none-free Java, create one, not OOo.  And don't steal Sun's 
 ^
 s/none-//.

And we are not talking about Java itself. We want a free Java. We want a
OOo which works with free Java. What RMS thinks may be different,
though... 

> property.  Create one, not asking Sun to give it out free.

Ah. With your argument they should close-source OOo, too? Or have never
open-sourced it? Because that was giving most of the StarOffice IP out?
Wow. What a nice argument

Anyway, there is free java. but Sun does regularily break OpenOffice.org
to not build with free JDKs (by using sun.misc.* for example, which no
free JDK implements - of course not, and is not even recommended for use
by Sun itself).

But I wrote RMS today that gcj/gij *basically* works for building (if you
disable helpcontent and patch a sun.misc.* using place) - not for
runtime, though. Both is necessary for free GNU/Linux distributions.
Debian and Defore for example are *not* allowed to use non-free stuff
for building packages for their main distribution...

And well, Suns/Blackdowns Java is a portability nightmare. There are many
platforms without a suitable Java. What to do with them? Let them in the
cold? Without a Office suite / a integrated databse module / the XML filters?

Regards,

Rene
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCf9j3+FmQsCSK63MRAp2hAJ0Tl0ejDyhV5+1dwQydWsyg+nw92QCfU3Wc
3RO+O52zS4ioJgNYumLieZ4=
=p2WL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Daniel Carrera]

vy.ho wrote:
JBoss is just an example of their argument.  Forking is fine with me too 
on open source stuff.  However, the reason behind it ("because it runs 
on Java") does not sound right to me.
It doesn't sound right to me either. I think that energy would be better 
spent on one of the free Java implementations (GCJ, Kaffe, SableVM, etc).


Forking is not theft. What RMS wants to do something that is permitted 
by OOo's license, and which has been done at least 3 times already.

I didn't mean it's a theft.  And I was talking about Java here.  This 
relates to  people asking Sun to open source Java up in a forceful way 
Ok, I misunderstood.
Indeed, no one has the right to tell, much less demand, that Sun open 
Java. Though I didn't see that happening in this case. I didn't think 
RMS was saying "Sun, you must open Java".

But in any event, I'm glad we actually agree.
Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Daniel Carrera]

Hi all,
Someone just informed me off-list that this email could be taken the 
wrong way. I'd like to clarify that what I mean to say is "let's not 
dwell on this". Personally, I don't think that a fork would be 
successful, but what I was trying to say is that we shouldn't make our 
lives difficult by dwelling about what RMS might have in mind. Just let 
him do whatever. This doesn't have to be a big deal if we don't make it one.

I hope that's better. I apologize if I conveyed the wrong message.
Best,
Daniel.
Daniel Carrera wrote:
vy.ho wrote:
Should they fork JBoss because it runs on none-free Java too?

If they want to spend their time forking JBoss, I'm not going to lose 
any sleep over it. Let them be.


If they want a none-free Java, create one, not OOo.  And don't steal 
Sun's property.  Create one, not asking Sun to give it out free.

Forking is not theft. What RMS wants to do something that is permitted 
by OOo's license, and which has been done at least 3 times already.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[vy.ho]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
If they want to spend their time forking JBoss, I'm not going to lose 
any sleep over it. Let them be.

JBoss is just an example of their argument.  Forking is fine with me too 
on open source stuff.  However, the reason behind it ("because it runs 
on Java") does not sound right to me.

Forking is not theft. What RMS wants to do something that is permitted 
by OOo's license, and which has been done at least 3 times already.

I didn't mean it's a theft.  And I was talking about Java here.  This 
relates to  people asking Sun to open source Java up in a forceful way 
(I think in business, big negative  publicity is a forceful way) so it's 
open source.  My argument is if you want to have it open source, then 
develop it.  Don't force people to give it out for free (which is 
equivalent of theft, I think).  I also didn't mean to go offtopic here, 
but the guy mention the whole reason behind this thing is a none-free 
Java.  So, there's more than 1 way to skin a cat.  You can fork OOo to 
make it not depend on Java, or you can write an implementation of Java, 
or just accept it.  Was it a problem in the first place?

Cheers,
Daniel.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Daniel Carrera]

vy.ho wrote:
Should they fork JBoss because it runs on none-free Java too?
If they want to spend their time forking JBoss, I'm not going to lose 
any sleep over it. Let them be.


If they want a none-free Java, create one, not OOo.  And don't steal Sun's 
property.  Create one, not asking Sun to give it out free.
Forking is not theft. What RMS wants to do something that is permitted 
by OOo's license, and which has been done at least 3 times already.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[vy.ho]

Should they fork JBoss because it runs on none-free Java too?  If they 
want a none-free Java, create one, not OOo.  And don't steal Sun's 
property.  Create one, not asking Sun to give it out free.

Daniel Carrera wrote:
Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
I thought people might be interested in this link.  It seems the RMS 
wants to fork OpenOffice.org due to its reliance on JDK.

I'm interested to see how it turns out. Some forks can revitalize a 
project (e.g. X.org) and others are abysmal failures. Needless to say, 
it's too early to tell about this one.

RMS may want to talk to Ximian. They already have a working fork.
Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Daniel Carrera]

Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
I thought people might be interested in this link.  It seems the RMS 
wants to fork OpenOffice.org due to its reliance on JDK.
I'm interested to see how it turns out. Some forks can revitalize a 
project (e.g. X.org) and others are abysmal failures. Needless to say, 
it's too early to tell about this one.

RMS may want to talk to Ximian. They already have a working fork.
Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[dev] Fwd: FSF to fork OOo over java

[Kevin B. Hendricks]

Hi,
I thought people might be interested in this link.  It seems the RMS 
wants to fork OpenOffice.org due to its reliance on JDK.

Thoughts,
Kevin
Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org
From: Bruce Byfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 8, 2005 9:26:07 PM EDT
To: debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org
Subject: FSF to fork OOo over java
See:
http://www.fsf.org/news/open-office-java.html
I'm planning to follow up on this news in an article for Newsforge. 
Does
anybody have any comments they would like to make?

I'll be checking this list tomorrow, but if people could cc me, I'd
appreciate it -- I have a lot of ground to cover on this story very 
quickly.

Thanks,
--
Bruce Byfield 604-421-7177
http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]