关于Java 7,Oracle的野心

虫虫 发布于 2011/06/08 13:10
阅读 944
收藏 0

没有人支持Java 7的协议,不过我没有找到Java7的授权协议原文。从投票的评论来看,似乎Oracle收紧了第三方的JDK实现。凡是有自己的Java虚拟机的公司都会受影响,比如IBM,Redhat,Google等等。

联想到近期Oracle对Google的起诉,这个明显就是冲着Google来的,而只有Google投反对票,说明Java 7的协议对Google的影响是最大的。

难道Oralce要干掉Android吗?!

 

JSR 336的投票结果如下:

On 2011-05-31 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-02 Google Inc. voted No with the following comment:
While Google supports the technical content of this JSR, we are voting no because of its licensing terms. As per the JCP resolutions of 9/25/2007 and 4/7/2009, "TCK licenses must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible implementations of Java specifications by including field-of-use restrictions on the tested implementations. Licenses containing such limitations do not meet the requirements of the JSPA, and violate the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be openly implemented."

The proposed license clearly violates this requirement (see Exhibit A, Section II). Oracle was duly reminded of this when JSR-336 was first proposed, but has done nothing to address the issue. It would be wrong to condone the inclusion of field-of-use restrictions in a TCK license, as this clearly violates the JSPA, by Oracle's own admission. Google does not want to slow the progress of this release, but we do believe it is critical that this issued be addressed, in order to comply with the JSPA and to preserve the openness of the Java platform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-06 SouJava voted Yes with the following comment:
SouJava votes yes on this JSR based on its technical merits. Our members are satisfied with the evolution of the technology, but are unhappy with how the licensing terms in this proposal discriminates against open source implementations, and how this can negatively affect or influence other JSRs. We also have concerns about the lack of transparency of some of the JSRs involved in JSR 336, and how it has negatively impacted the Public Review process. We urge the Spec Lead to rectify this immediately, long before the Final Draft is presented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-01 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-06 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-05 Keil, Werner voted Abstain with the following comment:
While I wish new and improved versions of Java to be released as soon as possible, given multiple delays in the past, the lack of transparency both in this Umbrella JSR and relevant components (especially Project Coin) fuel my decision to abstain here.

Not only have other EC members expressed their discomfort with this situation and confirmed some of these developments behind closed doors they demanded being opened, haven't been. The Spec Lead has also publicly admitted he wished, more of the SE-related activities were open and transparent than they were so far.

Given the efforts for more transparency by JSR 348 were just accepted by a larger majority than even this JSR or most others in SE/EE, I hope some more existing JSRs respect this and become more open especially if related projects even use names like "Open..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-31 VMWare voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-01 Intel Corp. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-02 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
IBM's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms.  IBM supports licensing models that create an open and level playing field by allowing third parties to create independent implementations of Java Specifications and that do not allow individuals or companies to exercise unnecessary control for proprietary advantage.  We support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP, and would hope others will support this direction. This comment is not necessarily directed at the current business or license terms for this JSR, however, it is a statement of IBM's preferred licensing model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-02 RedHat voted Yes with the following comment:
Red Hat's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms.  Red Hat would prefer a licensing model that creates an open arena for everyone, including those not members of the JCP and removes any ability for one individual or vendor to exert undue control over a standard. We are an open source company and hence would like to see such a licensing model for JCP contributions. Note however, that this comment is not necessarily directed at the license terms for this JSR, but is a statement of Red Hat's preferred licensing model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-02 SAP AG voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-05 London Java Community voted Yes with the following comment:
The LJC votes Yes to the JSR for SE 7 based on its technical merit and our very strong desire to get Java moving again.

We note that the archives for some of the Expert Groups that comprise this JSR have not yet been made public, despite a promise from Oracle to do so. We do not feel that this is appropriate for a public and open standards body. In particular, Oracle's silence as to why the archives have not been made public is harmful to community participation, i.e. the community has no access to historical technical discussions, which are vital for participating in future Java language initiatives.

Going forward, we are unlikely to support any JSRs that do not meet minimum standards of transparency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-06 Goldman Sachs & Co. voted Yes with the following comment:
Goldman Sachs votes Yes on JSR 336 based on its overall technical merit and our support for moving the platform forward

This umbrella JSR suffers from an overall lack of transparency compounded through inclusion of other JSR's as components which in turn are opaque. We clearly need to improve the transparency of the constituent parts and ensuing that the community has a clear understanding of what is coming.  We are hopeful that JSR 348 (JCP.Next) starts to address these issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-06 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-06-06 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with the following comment:
Fujitsu's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR, but not based on the licensing terms.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


加载中
1
阎王他爹
阎王他爹
商业利益的驱使。好好的东西,可能就要被糟蹋了。
1
dy810810
dy810810

有人喜欢做商业应用,有人喜欢做开源应用。个人喜好而已,没必要为谁摇旗呐喊。

大家都是成年人了,那里有那么容易被蛊惑。

dy810810
dy810810
@夏小龙 : 完了,生活大爆炸看的太多了。
夏小龙
夏小龙
严重同意,而且我发现此人发言甚是理性,仰慕
0
红薯
红薯
那么多公司都不支持 Java 7 的协议,为什么还要投赞同票呢。或者这在纯技术层面上对 Java 语言本身是利大于弊吧。
0
pizigou
pizigou
我看了,很多评论说对协议不满意,技术投票。
0
CheckStyle
CheckStyle

这两年做iOS应用的, 可要比用开源技术堆网站的赚钱.

这说明神马问题? 希望小朋友们不要被那些宗教性质的开源口号蛊惑了.

0
求渔
求渔
只不过现在不是微软一家独大的时候了
0
保罗的寓言
保罗的寓言

Java语言是“前人种树后人乘凉”的一个典型范例 —— Sun 公司发明、发展和维护了Java语言,但是从Java语言当中获利最大的却是IBM 和BEA .或许这就是sun公司的悲哀。java的开源的局限性和各自为营的商业模式严重的挑战了java规范的权威。

为了java的发展,我支持技术的开源,但是蚕食对方的知识的同时,是不是要授之以李,报之以桃,给对方一点甜饼,让他继续卖命,或许这就是Oracle面对开源和技术垄断所做出的让步。。

作为一个智商达不到一定境界的普通人,我会观望,并经这些纷争是代表着大人之间的事。。

谁是最后的赢家,都别想震倒我,胜者不一定为王,败者也别揪心

返回顶部
顶部