On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 12:41:01AM -0400, Chris wrote: > Let me be more to the point: All other Open Source tools for writing > large-scale, professional business software are entirely inadequate > compared to J2EE -- inadequate as in "not even an option." As far > as freedom is concerned, this is really the same situation faced by > RMS and other GNU folks in the days before Linux and gcc. They had > to use a proprietary Unix and C compiler as a crutch for a time > because it was the only workable option. I feel the same is true of > Java today. There is a difference between using proprietary tools to write Free replacements for those tools and writing new software that perpetuates non-free dependencies without helping to make any progress on the free status of those dependencies. > > My guess is that you are speaking in the terms of some sort of > > compromise. As developers, we each have to choose the role that our > > users freedom plays in the determination of the platform on which > > we chooses to write software. Developers clearly make different > > choices. > > The choice to use Java today would only undermine users' freedom if > there were not Open Source implementations in the works. The immediate effect on your users freedom is the same. The effect in the long term is not in your hands -- you've said yourself you're not working on this. Personally, I'm not willing to take that risk. > As it stands, the non-Free Java implementations are still free as in > beer, so there's no financial disadvantage during the wait. If the only advantage of Free Software were price, it would be the end of these discussions. Of course, this is not the case. > Certainly. Most other NP needs are already fully met by Free > Software without non-free dependancies. I see large-scale business > software as kinda the last piece of the Open Source puzzle: > currently missing, but finally now in early development. I suspect there will be missing pieces for a long way to come. I remember how ten years, the kernel was the last remaining missing piece. :) > As I said, I fully agree with Debian's strict freedom policies. It's > more what to do to get from A to B fastest, where A = need for > high-end business software and B = need for fully Open Source > solution. I'm not willing to put my users' freedom on hold -- pending work by me or by others -- to get A more quickly. If that means some organizations won't use my software right away, that's definitely unfortunate. However, my motivation to work on Debian-NP is to target the organizations that *want* to use Free Software and are willing to put in time, effort, and that might even be a tiny bit behind in functionality to get there. > > 1) Write your software with proprietary dependencies and then try > > to re-implement (or join others working to do so) the proprietary > > Software's functionality in Free Software; > > Which is what GNU did.. I disagree. I believe that what GNU did was rewrite the proprietary software as Free Software *first.* A better example would be if GNU went out and wrote an operating system and applications based on a proprietary C library and compiler and then, after the fact, try to develop Free drop-in replacements to replace the functionatly of these proprietary dependencies. > There are already complete Open Source J2EE implementations, JBoss > and JOnAS, but they require Java 1.4 and Kaffe/ClassPath are at 1.1 > + partial 1.2. I am, of course, using the Open Source J2EE software > instead of Sun's. But you are using the proprietary ClassPath, right? Are you primarily engaged in reimplementing the ClassPath to fit your needs as it developers? This would be a better comparison of what GNU did. > Sadly, I don't yet have the skills needed to help either. My thought > is that the Open Source community needs to get together, pool some > money, find some sponsors, and see to it that Kaffe/ClassPath are > brought up to Java 1.4 compliance sooner than later. You can help organize or advocate this as well. In any case, I wish you the best of luck on your project and I'm happy you'll be releasing your software as Free Software. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.yukidoke.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature