Hacked OpenJDK

Wade Chandler hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 16 21:18:51 UTC 2012

My take on the line of questions about legal things is that sort of 
stuff can be very confusing for people. It can be especially confusing 
for folks whose first language isn't English and they are reading 
English. Too, the Google v Oracle thing throws a little extra confusion 
into the mix since 1) the case isn't settled yet. 2) there isn't a heap 
of valid information on that available because of #1 though the 
available information seems grokable to myself once you get through the 
FUD and 3) someone is being sued; some folks just don't get it for what 
ever reason and can be a little scary for them; various countries, 
different laws, harsher realities on and on.

Sometimes simple explanations of the differences help and are required. 
I could bring up the Apache bit too, but no need, though it does 
contribute to confusion, and there are a lot of weeds to get through. 
The openjdk license should perhaps clear those up for anyone with 
knowledge of all that history....yada yada...the whole thing is a long 

On the comments related to binaries, he was definitely onto something. 
He seems dismayed that he has to look here and there for binaries for 
various platforms. One of the very virtues of Java is write once and run 
every where. Now, not having the binaries doesn't detract from that, but 
it certainly is a barrier to entry to using OpenJDK if one is targeting 
various platforms. That isn't inflammatory, but I think a fact. One must 
find the binaries or build them; unless I'm missing something. Seems 
like an issue the community could dwell upon, and is being discussed in 
another thread.


On 02/13/2012 11:59 AM, John Yeary wrote:
> Agreed.
> I don't like inflammatory items on the mailing lists I am on. I want people
> to focus on topic like everyone else I am sure.
> It is one thing to have a "hot" issue like closures, continuations, etc.
> where people may have opinions, but another to make dross remarks.
> John
> ____________________________
> John Yeary
> ____________________________
> <http://javaevangelist.blogspot.com/>   <https://twitter.com/jyeary>
> <http://www.youtube.com/johnyeary>
>    <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jyeary>
> <https://plus.google.com/112146428878473069965>
>    <http://www.facebook.com/jyeary>
> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/JavaEvangelistJohnYearysBlog>
>    <http://netbeans.org/people/84414-jyeary>
> ____________________________
> "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
> though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who
> neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight
> that knows not victory nor defeat."
> -- Theodore Roosevelt
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Andrew Haley<aph at redhat.com>  wrote:
>> On 02/13/2012 03:12 PM, John Yeary wrote:
>>> I spoke with Frans via IM. I don't believe that he is trying to be
>>> problematic. I don't think he was getting what the project is about. I
>> also
>>> think he is concerned (based on our chat), that he doesn't want to
>> promote
>>> OpenJDK in companies, and education if there is a fear of lawsuits. The
>>> question was not phrased, or framed very well.
>>> I would like to focus the project on the task at hand, and avoid any
>> flame
>>> wars. I don't think it is constructive to do so.
>>> We have a great opportunity to work as a worldwide team of developers to
>>> make a difference. Please don't forget that.
>> Fair enough, but I think that any approach to this list that begins
>> with "If I ship Java with a nonstandard API, will Oracle sue me?" will
>> not get a good response.  It's a question that reminds everyone of
>> Microsoft's "Embrace, extend and extinguish."  It took quite a lot for
>> Sun to come around to the idea that it was safe to free Java, partly
>> because the community just wasn't interested in incompatible variants.
>> Andrew.

More information about the discuss mailing list