So, Java. - Wikitech-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

So, Java.

I need an extra tab.

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Pywikipedia-l]...

David Gerard

13 Aug 2010 13 Aug '10

5:55 p.m.

So what's our escape plan from Java? http://blogs.computerworld.com/16736/oracle_vs_google_over_java_in_android_… (I work in a Java shop. I'd already recommended to my boss and boss's boss that we get the hell off Solaris ASAP. Today we had a lot of Java developers rather concerned for their careers.) - d.

Reply

Show replies by date

Daniel Schwen

13 Aug 13 Aug

5:57 p.m.

So what's our escape plan from Java?

Where are we "with" Java so that we need to escape "from" Java?

Reply

Chad

5:58 p.m.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Daniel Schwen <lists(a)schwen.de> wrote:

So what's our escape plan from Java?

Where are we "with" Java so that we need to escape "from" Java?

Lucene. -Chad

Reply

David Gerard

5:59 p.m.

On 13 August 2010 21:57, Daniel Schwen <lists(a)schwen.de> wrote:

> So what's our escape plan from Java?

Where are we "with" Java so that we need to escape "from" Java?

Search, for one. Java is not free software in practice if Oracle is spewing lawsuits all over the place. (My escape plan at work was to move to OpenJDK 7. This may not allow escape from Oracle's gibbering insanity either.) - d.

Reply

Daniel Schwen

6:05 p.m.

Search, for one. Java is not free software in practice if Oracle is spewing lawsuits all over the place.

Right, lucene slipped my mind. I suppose there are good reasons not to use CLucene?

Reply

Aryeh Gregor

6:05 p.m.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:55 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So what's our escape plan from Java? http://blogs.computerworld.com/16736/oracle_vs_google_over_java_in_android_… (I work in a Java shop. I'd already recommended to my boss and boss's boss that we get the hell off Solaris ASAP. Today we had a lot of Java developers rather concerned for their careers.)

Oracle is only suing Google because Google is redistributing Java without paying them, and because they're using a modified version (so technically they're not covered by the patent grants), and because Google has deep pockets. It's pretty implausible that they'll sue users and developers directly. If they do, Wikimedia has little enough money to be extremely low on their list. I don't think we need to worry about this one way or the other at this point.

Reply

David Gerard

6:09 p.m.

On 13 August 2010 22:05, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Oracle is only suing Google because Google is redistributing Java without paying them, and because they're using a modified version (so technically they're not covered by the patent grants), and because Google has deep pockets. It's pretty implausible that they'll sue users and developers directly. If they do, Wikimedia has little enough money to be extremely low on their list. I don't think we need to worry about this one way or the other at this point.

I wasn't aware of "if we can probably get away with it" in the WMF guidelines regarding free software. - d.

Reply

Aryeh Gregor

6:25 p.m.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:09 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I wasn't aware of "if we can probably get away with it" in the WMF guidelines regarding free software.

If software is non-free just because someone files patent suits against those who use it, then Linux is non-free also. Microsoft has claimed for years to have patents that make it illegal to redistribute Linux without its permission, and it has sued one company (TomTom) on those grounds. Likewise, Apple recently sued HTC on a theory that boils down to the claim that probably all web browsers infringe its patents, IIRC. How is this different from Oracle suing Google? Almost all software might theoretically be covered by someone's patents, but practically speaking, that doesn't make it non-free. It's still free as long as modified versions can be widely disseminated in practice, and that's still the case for Java up until Oracle starts collecting royalties as a matter of course.

Reply

David Gerard

6:49 p.m.

On 13 August 2010 22:25, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Almost all software might theoretically be covered by someone's patents, but practically speaking, that doesn't make it non-free. It's still free as long as modified versions can be widely disseminated in practice, and that's still the case for Java up until Oracle starts collecting royalties as a matter of course.

OK. Nevertheless, I would really strongly suggest planning a firm escape route as soon as possible. - d.

Reply

Ryan Lane

6:57 p.m.

OK. Nevertheless, I would really strongly suggest planning a firm escape route as soon as possible.

Why? The Java we use is GPL licensed. As long as we use a JDK/VM that is open, we are good. -- Ryan Lane

Reply

Danese Cooper

14 Aug 14 Aug

11:38 a.m.

On 8/13/10 2:57 PM, Ryan Lane wrote:

OK. Nevertheless, I would really strongly suggest planning a firm escape route as soon as possible.

Why? The Java we use is GPL licensed. As long as we use a JDK/VM that is open, we are good. -- Ryan Lane

All, You all may not realize that I have been *very* involved in the long road to open Java. I am also an Apache member and was a mentor for the Apache Harmony project (which is where Android got their Java-compliant, open source class libraries from). The lawsuit is so far very narrowly targeting their use of the Dalvik VM and has so far not mentioned the Class Libraries, the Apache Harmony or OpenJDK. Danese

Reply

Ryan Lane

13 Aug 13 Aug

6:55 p.m.

If software is non-free just because someone files patent suits against those who use it, then Linux is non-free also. Microsoft has claimed for years to have patents that make it illegal to redistribute Linux without its permission, and it has sued one company (TomTom) on those grounds. Likewise, Apple recently sued HTC on a theory that boils down to the claim that probably all web browsers infringe its patents, IIRC. How is this different from Oracle suing Google? Almost all software might theoretically be covered by someone's patents, but practically speaking, that doesn't make it non-free. It's still free as long as modified versions can be widely disseminated in practice, and that's still the case for Java up until Oracle starts collecting royalties as a matter of course.

Exactly. We better start planning our route away from PHP, it may have technology patented in Java, and we all know how Oracle loves to sue. -- Ryan Lane

Reply

scs＠eskimo.com

6:55 p.m.

David Gerard wrote:

On 13 August 2010 22:05, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Oracle is only suing Google because Google is redistributing Java without paying them, and because they're using a modified version (so technically they're not covered by the patent grants), and because Google has deep pockets. It's pretty implausible that they'll sue users and developers directly. If they do, Wikimedia has little enough money to be extremely low on their list. I don't think we need to worry about this one way or the other at this point.

I wasn't aware of "if we can probably get away with it" in the WMF guidelines regarding free software.

But the first half of Aryeh's first sentence ("Oracle is only suing... not covered by the patent grants") stands alone. Unless we're afraid that Oracle is going to start going after anyone who uses Java in any way, we shouldn't have to worry. (We're not redistributing JDK's, let alone modifying them.)

Reply

5002

days inactive

5003

days old

wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

12 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

Aryeh Gregor
Chad
Danese Cooper
Daniel Schwen
David Gerard
Ryan Lane
scs＠eskimo.com