EnforcingProperUsage - Revision history

JaroslavTulach: /* Summary */

2015-06-14T14:08:08Z

Summary

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:08, 14 June 2015
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Labelling classes considered public [[API]] with [[GPLwithClassPathException]] and labelling all others (package private, accidentally visible, etc.) with [[GPL]] is a cute way to give hackers a freedom to experiment, but prevent the hacks to get to production (non-[[GPL]]) systems.		Labelling classes considered public [[API]] with [[GPLwithClassPathException]] and labelling all others (package private, accidentally visible, etc.) with [[GPL]] is a cute way to give hackers a freedom to experiment, but prevent the hacks to get to production (non-[[GPL]]) systems.

-	Re-licensing ''sun.misc.Unsafe'' & co. from [[GPLwithClassPathException]] to [[GPL]] seems to [[I\|me]] like the best thing [[OpenJDK]] team should do. Unless it ~~fear~~ such change might break the unspoken contract with the Java community at large: Hacking around [[JDK]] internals is [[good]] and nobody should use lawyers to prevent that!	+	Re-licensing ''sun.misc.Unsafe'' & co. from [[GPLwithClassPathException]] to [[GPL]] seems to [[I\|me]] like the best thing [[OpenJDK]] team should do. Unless it fears such change might break the unspoken contract with the Java community at large: Hacking around [[JDK]] internals is [[good]] and nobody should use lawyers to prevent that!

	[[Category:APIDesignPatterns:Encapsulation]]		[[Category:APIDesignPatterns:Encapsulation]]
	[[Category:APIDesignPatterns]]		[[Category:APIDesignPatterns]]

JaroslavTulach: /* Summary */

2015-06-14T14:07:46Z

Summary

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:07, 14 June 2015
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Labelling classes considered public [[API]] with [[GPLwithClassPathException]] and labelling all others (package private, accidentally visible, etc.) with [[GPL]] is a cute way to give hackers a freedom to experiment, but prevent the hacks to get to production (non-[[GPL]]) systems.		Labelling classes considered public [[API]] with [[GPLwithClassPathException]] and labelling all others (package private, accidentally visible, etc.) with [[GPL]] is a cute way to give hackers a freedom to experiment, but prevent the hacks to get to production (non-[[GPL]]) systems.

-	Re-licensing ''sun.misc.Unsafe'' & co. from [[GPLwithClassPathException]] to [[GPL]] seems to [[I\|me]] like the best thing [[OpenJDK]] team should do. Unless it fear such change might break the unspoken contract with the Java community at large: Hacking around [[JDK]] internals is [[good]] and nobody should use ~~[[Oracle]]~~ lawyers to prevent that!	+	Re-licensing ''sun.misc.Unsafe'' & co. from [[GPLwithClassPathException]] to [[GPL]] seems to [[I\|me]] like the best thing [[OpenJDK]] team should do. Unless it fear such change might break the unspoken contract with the Java community at large: Hacking around [[JDK]] internals is [[good]] and nobody should use lawyers to prevent that!

	[[Category:APIDesignPatterns:Encapsulation]]		[[Category:APIDesignPatterns:Encapsulation]]
	[[Category:APIDesignPatterns]]		[[Category:APIDesignPatterns]]

JaroslavTulach: /* Legal solution */

2015-06-14T09:21:28Z

Legal solution

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:21, 14 June 2015
Line 37:		Line 37:
	However we can go even further: we can use these licenses to prevent hacks! If there is a class in a non-public package (like ''sun.misc.Unsafe'') just license it under [[GPL]]. If there are package private classes in otherwise public [[API]] package - give them [[GPL]] license as well!		However we can go even further: we can use these licenses to prevent hacks! If there is a class in a non-public package (like ''sun.misc.Unsafe'') just license it under [[GPL]]. If there are package private classes in otherwise public [[API]] package - give them [[GPL]] license as well!

-	No [[API]] user should be linking against implementation classes. Releasing them under [[GPL]] license will effectively prevent that (unless one accepts the [[WhyGPL\|virality of the license]] and releases own hacks to public under [[GPL]] license as well). Not only this prevents normal (e.g. non-[[GPL]] users) from a compilation against such non-public classes, but it effectively prevents reflective access as well. Usually the [[GPL]] is interpreted as being ''linkage''-viral, but the text talks in general about ''derived work'' and it is clear calling hidden implementation methods of classes is derived from a knowledge of these classes - e.g. [[GPL]] remains viral.	+	No [[API]] user should be linking against implementation classes. Releasing them under [[GPL]] license will effectively prevent that (unless one accepts the [[WhyGPL\|virality of the license]] and releases own hacks to public under [[GPL]] license as well). Not only this prevents normal (e.g. non-[[GPL]] users) from a compilation against such non-public classes, but it effectively prevents reflective access as well. Usually the [[GPL]] is interpreted as being ''linkage''-viral, but the text talks in general about ''derived work'' and it is clear that calling hidden implementation methods of classes is derived from a knowledge of these classes - e.g. [[GPL]] remains viral.

	== Summary ==		== Summary ==

JaroslavTulach: /* Legal solution */

2015-06-14T09:20:12Z

Legal solution

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:20, 14 June 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:
	However recently [[I]] started to work on [[Truffle]] [[API]] and [[I]] noticed interesting thing: the [[Truffle]] [[Hg]] repository is using two licenses: [[GPL]] and [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The packages that are supposed to contain [[API]] are licensed under [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The implementation parts of the project (like tests) are kept under [[GPL]].		However recently [[I]] started to work on [[Truffle]] [[API]] and [[I]] noticed interesting thing: the [[Truffle]] [[Hg]] repository is using two licenses: [[GPL]] and [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The packages that are supposed to contain [[API]] are licensed under [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The implementation parts of the project (like tests) are kept under [[GPL]].

-	We all know [[WhyGPL]] is useful - it is viral. It is also clear why [[GPLwithClassPathException]] is useful - as it is not viral - it increases adoption of your [[API]]. Mixing them in a single project like [[Truffle]] makes sense. It separates the public parts from the implementation only ones.	+	We all know [[WhyGPL]] is useful - it is viral. It is also clear why [[GPLwithClassPathException]] is useful - as it is not viral, it increases adoption of your [[API]]. Mixing them in a single project like [[Truffle]] makes sense. It separates the public parts from the implementation only ones.

	However we can go even further: we can use these licenses to prevent hacks! If there is a class in a non-public package (like ''sun.misc.Unsafe'') just license it under [[GPL]]. If there are package private classes in otherwise public [[API]] package - give them [[GPL]] license as well!		However we can go even further: we can use these licenses to prevent hacks! If there is a class in a non-public package (like ''sun.misc.Unsafe'') just license it under [[GPL]]. If there are package private classes in otherwise public [[API]] package - give them [[GPL]] license as well!

JaroslavTulach: /* Legal solution */

2015-06-14T09:19:08Z

Legal solution

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:19, 14 June 2015
Line 29:		Line 29:
	== Legal solution ==		== Legal solution ==

-	So the technical solutions are limited. For many years [[I]] tried to prevent ~~hacks using~~ [[NetBeans]] internals and [[I]] have to admit: unless you take away the reflective permission from the code, there is no engineering way to do it.	+	So the technical solutions are limited. For many years [[I]] tried to prevent hacking of [[NetBeans]] internals and [[I]] have to admit: unless you take away the reflective permission from the code, there is no engineering way to do it.

	However recently [[I]] started to work on [[Truffle]] [[API]] and [[I]] noticed interesting thing: the [[Truffle]] [[Hg]] repository is using two licenses: [[GPL]] and [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The packages that are supposed to contain [[API]] are licensed under [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The implementation parts of the project (like tests) are kept under [[GPL]].		However recently [[I]] started to work on [[Truffle]] [[API]] and [[I]] noticed interesting thing: the [[Truffle]] [[Hg]] repository is using two licenses: [[GPL]] and [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The packages that are supposed to contain [[API]] are licensed under [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The implementation parts of the project (like tests) are kept under [[GPL]].

JaroslavTulach: /* Summary */

2015-06-14T09:12:08Z

Summary

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:12, 14 June 2015
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Labelling classes considered public [[API]] with [[GPLwithClassPathException]] and labelling all others (package private, accidentally visible, etc.) with [[GPL]] is a cute way to give hackers a freedom to experiment, but prevent the hacks to get to production (non-[[GPL]]) systems.		Labelling classes considered public [[API]] with [[GPLwithClassPathException]] and labelling all others (package private, accidentally visible, etc.) with [[GPL]] is a cute way to give hackers a freedom to experiment, but prevent the hacks to get to production (non-[[GPL]]) systems.

-	Re-licensing ''sun.misc.Unsafe'' & co. from [[GPLwithClassPathException]] to [[GPL]] seems to [[I\|me]] like the best thing [[OpenJDK]] team should do. Unless it fear such change might break the unspoken contract with the Java community: Hacking around [[JDK]] internals is [[good]] and nobody should use [[Oracle]] lawyers to prevent that!	+	Re-licensing ''sun.misc.Unsafe'' & co. from [[GPLwithClassPathException]] to [[GPL]] seems to [[I\|me]] like the best thing [[OpenJDK]] team should do. Unless it fear such change might break the unspoken contract with the Java community at large: Hacking around [[JDK]] internals is [[good]] and nobody should use [[Oracle]] lawyers to prevent that!

	[[Category:APIDesignPatterns:Encapsulation]]		[[Category:APIDesignPatterns:Encapsulation]]
	[[Category:APIDesignPatterns]]		[[Category:APIDesignPatterns]]

JaroslavTulach: /* Legal solution */

2015-06-14T09:10:38Z

Legal solution

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:10, 14 June 2015
Line 35:		Line 35:
	We all know [[WhyGPL]] is useful - it is viral. It is also clear why [[GPLwithClassPathException]] is useful - as it is not viral - it increases adoption of your [[API]]. Mixing them in a single project like [[Truffle]] makes sense. It separates the public parts from the implementation only ones.		We all know [[WhyGPL]] is useful - it is viral. It is also clear why [[GPLwithClassPathException]] is useful - as it is not viral - it increases adoption of your [[API]]. Mixing them in a single project like [[Truffle]] makes sense. It separates the public parts from the implementation only ones.

-	However we can go even further: we can use these licenses to prevent ~~(non-public)~~ hacks! If there is a class in a non-public package (like ''sun.misc.Unsafe'') just license it under [[GPL]]. If there are package private classes in otherwise public [[API]] package - give them [[GPL]] license as well!	+	However we can go even further: we can use these licenses to prevent hacks! If there is a class in a non-public package (like ''sun.misc.Unsafe'') just license it under [[GPL]]. If there are package private classes in otherwise public [[API]] package - give them [[GPL]] license as well!

	No [[API]] user should be linking against implementation classes. Releasing them under [[GPL]] license will effectively prevent that (unless one accepts the [[WhyGPL\|virality of the license]] and releases own hacks to public under [[GPL]] license as well). Not only this prevents normal (e.g. non-[[GPL]] users) from a compilation against such non-public classes, but it effectively prevents reflective access as well. Usually the [[GPL]] is interpreted as being ''linkage''-viral, but the text talks in general about ''derived work'' and it is clear calling hidden implementation methods of classes is derived from a knowledge of these classes - e.g. [[GPL]] remains viral.		No [[API]] user should be linking against implementation classes. Releasing them under [[GPL]] license will effectively prevent that (unless one accepts the [[WhyGPL\|virality of the license]] and releases own hacks to public under [[GPL]] license as well). Not only this prevents normal (e.g. non-[[GPL]] users) from a compilation against such non-public classes, but it effectively prevents reflective access as well. Usually the [[GPL]] is interpreted as being ''linkage''-viral, but the text talks in general about ''derived work'' and it is clear calling hidden implementation methods of classes is derived from a knowledge of these classes - e.g. [[GPL]] remains viral.

JaroslavTulach: /* Legal solution */

2015-06-14T09:10:15Z

Legal solution

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:10, 14 June 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:
	However recently [[I]] started to work on [[Truffle]] [[API]] and [[I]] noticed interesting thing: the [[Truffle]] [[Hg]] repository is using two licenses: [[GPL]] and [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The packages that are supposed to contain [[API]] are licensed under [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The implementation parts of the project (like tests) are kept under [[GPL]].		However recently [[I]] started to work on [[Truffle]] [[API]] and [[I]] noticed interesting thing: the [[Truffle]] [[Hg]] repository is using two licenses: [[GPL]] and [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The packages that are supposed to contain [[API]] are licensed under [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The implementation parts of the project (like tests) are kept under [[GPL]].

-	We all know [[WhyGPL]] is useful - it is viral. It is also clear why [[GPLwithClassPathException]] is useful - as it is not viral - it increases adoption of your [[API]]. Mixing them in a single project like [[Truffle]] makes sense. It separates the public parts from the implementation only.	+	We all know [[WhyGPL]] is useful - it is viral. It is also clear why [[GPLwithClassPathException]] is useful - as it is not viral - it increases adoption of your [[API]]. Mixing them in a single project like [[Truffle]] makes sense. It separates the public parts from the implementation only ones.

	However we can go even further: we can use these licenses to prevent (non-public) hacks! If there is a class in a non-public package (like ''sun.misc.Unsafe'') just license it under [[GPL]]. If there are package private classes in otherwise public [[API]] package - give them [[GPL]] license as well!		However we can go even further: we can use these licenses to prevent (non-public) hacks! If there is a class in a non-public package (like ''sun.misc.Unsafe'') just license it under [[GPL]]. If there are package private classes in otherwise public [[API]] package - give them [[GPL]] license as well!

JaroslavTulach: /* Legal solution */

2015-06-14T09:09:35Z

Legal solution

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:09, 14 June 2015
Line 31:		Line 31:
	So the technical solutions are limited. For many years [[I]] tried to prevent hacks using [[NetBeans]] internals and [[I]] have to admit: unless you take away the reflective permission from the code, there is no engineering way to do it.		So the technical solutions are limited. For many years [[I]] tried to prevent hacks using [[NetBeans]] internals and [[I]] have to admit: unless you take away the reflective permission from the code, there is no engineering way to do it.

-	However recently [[I]] started to work on [[Truffle]] [[API]] and [[I]] noticed interesting thing: the [[Truffle]] [[Hg]] repository is using two licenses: [[GPL]] and [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The ~~package~~ that are supposed to contain [[API]] are licensed under [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The implementation parts of the project (like tests) are kept under [[GPL]].	+	However recently [[I]] started to work on [[Truffle]] [[API]] and [[I]] noticed interesting thing: the [[Truffle]] [[Hg]] repository is using two licenses: [[GPL]] and [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The packages that are supposed to contain [[API]] are licensed under [[GPLwithClassPathException]]. The implementation parts of the project (like tests) are kept under [[GPL]].

	We all know [[WhyGPL]] is useful - it is viral. It is also clear why [[GPLwithClassPathException]] is useful - as it is not viral - it increases adoption of your [[API]]. Mixing them in a single project like [[Truffle]] makes sense. It separates the public parts from the implementation only.		We all know [[WhyGPL]] is useful - it is viral. It is also clear why [[GPLwithClassPathException]] is useful - as it is not viral - it increases adoption of your [[API]]. Mixing them in a single project like [[Truffle]] makes sense. It separates the public parts from the implementation only.

JaroslavTulach at 09:08, 14 June 2015

2015-06-14T09:08:48Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 14 June 2015
Line 44:		Line 44:

	Re-licensing ''sun.misc.Unsafe'' & co. from [[GPLwithClassPathException]] to [[GPL]] seems to [[I\|me]] like the best thing [[OpenJDK]] team should do. Unless it fear such change might break the unspoken contract with the Java community: Hacking around [[JDK]] internals is [[good]] and nobody should use [[Oracle]] lawyers to prevent that!		Re-licensing ''sun.misc.Unsafe'' & co. from [[GPLwithClassPathException]] to [[GPL]] seems to [[I\|me]] like the best thing [[OpenJDK]] team should do. Unless it fear such change might break the unspoken contract with the Java community: Hacking around [[JDK]] internals is [[good]] and nobody should use [[Oracle]] lawyers to prevent that!
		+
		+	[[Category:APIDesignPatterns:Encapsulation]]
		+	[[Category:APIDesignPatterns]]