HyperWiki

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
en:philosophy:java_downfalls [2022/03/24 00:45]
i3_relativism [What are the issues?] cleanup and finish rust refrenced paragraph 		en:philosophy:java_downfalls [2024/12/09 17:58] (current)
throgh [What are the issues?]
Line 1: Line 1:
-<note warning> This page is still in progress, so please dont aprove this draft yet!</note> 
- 
 ====== Java's Language Downfalls ====== ====== Java's Language Downfalls ======
  
-As free software activists, we all enjoy using the latest and greatest in free software, but we need to make sure that the software we are using **really does respect our freedom**. A lot of software relies and **depends on Java**, since it appears to be fully free software, nontheless we have **many concerns with implementation** and decisions made by authors of this language.+As free software activists, we all enjoy using the latest and greatest in free software, but we need to make sure that the software we are using **really does respect our freedom**. A lot of software relies and **depends on Java**, since it appears to be fully free software, nontheless we have many concerns with **implementation** and **decisions** made by authors of this language.
  
 ===== What are the issues? ===== ===== What are the issues? =====
  
-Removal reasons:+Firstly the **OpenJDK** trademark policy is problematic. Their trademark license **imposes restrictions** for the **redistribution of modified versions** that making it inconvenient to exercise [[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html|freedom 3]]. The [[https://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html|OpenJDK Trademark]] says **"changes required", "so long as that work takes place in the context of an approved Project hosted in the OpenJDK Community"**. Therefore everything by Java project (OpenJDK and JVM) can't be **patched and/or modified** without **approval** by the "community".
  
-OpenJDK is trademarked and is not to be distributed without modification unless restrictions are respected. +Secondly, on what comes to security, Java has been one of the most common **infection vectors** for UNIX-based systems. Poor **coding practices in JVM** have resulted in many popular [[https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2011-3544/|cross-platform exploits]].
-* Security: Java has been one of the most common infection vectors for GNU/Linux. Poor coding practices in JVM have resulted in many popular cross-platform exploits. +
-* Packaging Standards: All current PKGBUILDs that were inherited from Arch are "dirty" in the sense that they download various pre-compiled and pre-packaged binaries. These are a risk to our users. To properly build them requires several hundred additional PKGBUILDs and the time to rebuild Java from scratch. This would require considerable effort and is not currently feesable at this time.+
  
-** ** (jvm) [[https://issues.hyperbola.info/index.php?do=details&task_id=736|write here]]. **Their trademark license imposes requirements** for the distribution of modified versions that **make it inconvenient to exercise freedom 3**. The [[https://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html|OpenJDK Trademark]] says **"changes required", "so long as that work takes place in the context of an approved Project hosted in the OpenJDK Community"**. Therefore everything abranged by Java project (OpenJDK and JVM) must follow this obnoxious clauses.+And lastly, current or previously used packaging-scripts are not very trustworthy, in the sense that they download various **pre-compiled and pre-packaged binaries**, which obviously goes against our ideals and our [[en:project:social_contract|social contract]]. These are a risk to our users. To properly build them requires several hundred additional PKGBUILDs and the time to rebuild Java from scratch.
  
-In short, **OpenJDK won't be happy with us applying patches and modifications** to their trademarked language **without approval, so it is a freedom issue**. For further references, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Java|Criticism to Language itself]] as well has [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_security|Criticism to repeated Security Vunerabilities]]. +For further references, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Java|criticism to the language itself]] as well has [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_security|criticism to repeated security vunerabilities]].
-===== Big Picture ===== +
- +
-There are various project utilizing Java as a aceptable language. I2P is one of them, has well as a huge plenora of projects. +
- +
-<note tip>As an alternative to the java I2P implementation, [[https://i2pd.website/|i2pd (I2P Daemon)]] may be used. It is a full-featured C++ implementation of I2P client, **useful for building and using the anonymous I2P network**. However, this implementation still lacks some features given is overall less mature.</note>+
  
 ===== Solutions ===== ===== Solutions =====
-  * **Rebranding** the entire language to avoid the trademark restriction. Such as [[https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/|IceCat]] was made to replace Firefox and [[https://wiki.hyperbola.info/iceweasel-uxp|Iceweasel-UXP]] to replace Basilisk; however it is a programming language, not a browser. **A rebranded version of Rust 
-maintained by the GNU Project and FSDG-compliant distros could be the way**. However, we would need patches to adapt all Rust-dependant applications to the modified version of Rust, since it is a programming language. We would also need to maintain a list of nonfree cargo packages to blacklist those for [[https://www.hyperbola.info/packages/core/any/your-freedom/|your-freedom]]. 
- 
-  * Getting Rust to change its trademark agreement to allow modifications on the rust binary for any purpose in respect of [[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html|Freedom 3]]. 
- 
-===== Comparisons with other software trademarks ===== 
- 
-Some users have correctly mentioned that many other software packages have trademarks, do we plan to remove them all? No. We are not against all trademarks, only those which explicitly prohibit normal use, patching, and modification. 
  
-As an example, neither [[https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/|Python PSF]] nor [[https://www.perlfoundation.org/trademarks.html|Perl Trademarks]] currently prohibit patching the code without prior approval. They do prohibit abuse of their trademarks, e.g. you cannot create a company called "Python", but this does not affect your ability to modify their free software and/or apply patches.+There are no real further solutions as **Java is a clearly trademark-protected language**. It will always come towards a conflict with the persons / organizations owning the trademark and rights. And a so-called "clean room" implementation is not in reach besides Java itself has a field full with more complexity. Hyperbola has chosen to keep Java and OpenJDK complete outside of the system, with all affected dependencies and packages.
  
-Due to the anti-modification clause, Rust is a non-permissive trademark that violates user freedom.