Re: Towards Java Libre
David Herron <david.herron <at> sun.com> writes:
> I have been subscribed to this list for 3+ weeks, listening. I
> suppose I could have posted a note here, but as a group we (as Tom
> said) were trying to be very quiet about this project until we could
> announce it at Java ONE. That meant not sending a note to a public
> mailing list like this. You know how marketing people to launch
> surprise announcements ... so that's what's happened.
Judging by the ongoing feedback on debian-legal, transparency from the beginning
would have worked much more in Sun's favour.
> That we "already provide RPM's" is a symptom of our old mindset. To
> get to a world where "apt-get install jroller" will work smoothly we
> have to change our mindset and interact with you guys in a different
> way.
Cool.
In order for "apt-get install jroller" to work in the smoothest fashion, it
needs to be in 'main', i.e. to build & run with one of the free runtimes in
Debian, like gcj, Kaffe, cacao, SableVM, IKVM, etc. with all its dependencies.
If Sun is interested, for example, in getting GlassFish into Debian's main,
then it'd be nice to have Sun work with the free runtimes to get all the
GlassFish components sorted out, building & working on top of them. That would
be at least an interim solution until Sun's own implementation is liberated.
> But, of
> course, now our focus is going to take a different direction to Sun's
> java joining the ranks of free implementations.
Good. Please do join in the fun soon.
> I agree with what you say about the JCP. I used to work on IETF
> standards committees and those groups are completely in the open and
> it didn't hurt anybody. I don't understand why the JCP has a default
> of working behind closed doors.
I don't quite understand why Sun's spec leads don't take the opportunities
provided under JCP 2.6, and actually make at least their own JSRs transparent.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Reply to: