Can someone explain why Oracle should give apache exemptions from field of use restrictions? I thought the whole point with harmony was that Apache/IBM/Intel et al were trying to create a competing vm that could be used everywhere with no restrictions, with the intent of never giving anything back to Sun/Oracle. How can this be in Oracles best interests given their large investment - or am I missing something?
(a) Java has always been marketed as an "open" environment, where alternate VM's were encouraged.
(b) Oracle doesn't make any money from the J2SE JVM anyway (it's free to use), and the income they get from licencing J2ME is dropping quickly.
(c) Apache/IBM/Intel have given a lot back to Java, and continue to do so. Look at their involvement on the JCP process - most JCP changes aren't led by Oracle/Sun and getting those done takes real engineering resources. The outputs of them are happily picked up by Oracle/Sun and included in Java
(d) Given that IBM/Apache have invested as much in Java as Sun/Oracle ever did it's not clear to me why Oracle should try and stop them investing more to build their own VM.
In anycase IBM has given up and join Oracle on OpenJDK (instead of Apache Harmony).
(a) On non Sun JVM-supported platforms Sun would always point to other VM's (eg, hardware support for JVM bytecodes in ARM, etc). Also, they would quite happily discuss the benefits of using IBM's Linux JVM.
d) The Java ecosystem has grown because of the diverse range of vendors. It's easy to make an argument that JavaEE only survived the .NET onslaught back in ~2002-2005 because of the high-quality and free implementations from Apache. The current biggest growth market for Java is in non-traditional areas (eg, Google's product: AppEngine/J, GWT and especially Android). Oracle should work with these vendors to keep the Java platform relevant.
There are quite a few alternate commercial VMs including Oracle's own JRockit, IBM's commercial JVM and JVMs by some startups such as Fiji. But Sun/Oracle apparently had a problem with an alternate Apache licensed VM.
It was my understanding that there was never any problem as long as they agreed to field of use restrictions. Is this not the case, and if so do you have a link?
Because the JCP process that Sun agreed to says they are obligated to. Obviously they can renege, but Apache is pointing out that if they do, the JCP is a sham, in which Apache will refuse to participate.
