BT
x Your opinion matters! Please fill in the InfoQ Survey about your reading habits!

JavaSE 7 JSR Approved Despite Division

by Alex Blewitt on Jun 08, 2011 |

Oracle has announced that the JavaSE 7 governing JSR (336) has passed the public review ballot.  Google voted against the vote, Werner Keil abstained, and no vote was received from Credit Suisse. Many others adding their concerns regarding the ongoing licensing dispute between Sun/Oracle and Apache.

Java releases are referenced with a JSR which lists the contents of each release, by reference to other JSRs. These have often been completed ahead of the JSR vote (though some, like Project Coin, are effectively ongoing through into Java 8) so the act of JavaSE JSR approval is really a rubber-stamping opportunity.

Many have commented before on the state of the licensing aspect of Java, which places “Field of Use” restrictions on where alternate implementors can run their JDKS. This was instigated by Sun in order to prevent open and separate implementations for running on the early 2000 era “dumbphones”, which was their only significant licensing stream for Java.

The Apache Harmony project aimed to provide an independent implementation not only of the JVM but also the class libraries, but without being allowed access to the Java TCK was never able to refer to itself as Java. Since Oracle's takeover of Sun Microsystems, it had stepped up the pressure against Apache, inviting IBM to play a key role in the future of the OpenJDK (and subsequently Apple as well) to avoid platform-specific forks.

Stephen Colebourne, who has been writing for some time about the situation, calls it passing in the Zombie JCP, highlighting “You cannot claim to be an Open Standards body if you do not allow implementations of the specification.”

In the latest round SouJava, IBM, RedHat, the London Java Community, Goldman Sachs & Co, and Fujitsu all raised concerns about licensing, and a number of participants also raised concerns about the overall transparency of the process.  During the earlier review ballot everyone except Apache, Google and Tim Peierls voted for the proposal, making it the first JavaSE that wasn't unanimously voted for. However, Werner Keil, SAP AG, IBM, Eclipse, RedHat and Credit Suisse all made comments in their votes that the ongoing dispute was harmful to the Java community at large. Since Oracle was going to go ahead with the release regardless of the outcome of the vote, some members switched from abstaining to voting against the proposal in protest.

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or or login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Tell us what you think

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Why now? by Wouter Oet

Why do you write this now? The results of the votes are known for more than 6 months.

Re: Why now? by Guest

Because he referenced the wrong vote ... should be jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5207

Re: Why now? by Charles Humble

Thanks for pointing this out. We've amended the link, and edited slightly to clarify.

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

3 Discuss

Educational Content

General Feedback
Bugs
Advertising
Editorial
InfoQ.com and all content copyright © 2006-2014 C4Media Inc. InfoQ.com hosted at Contegix, the best ISP we've ever worked with.
Privacy policy
BT