Re: [tf-help] Hosting a J2ME game

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Audouard Benoit <baud123@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I'm looking for hosting for my GPL 3-licensed project that is a J2ME
>> deterministic minesweeper game.  I don't know about a free
>> implementation of SUN's WTK, which is necessary to compile the thing,
> ah WTK is which
> was formerly J2ME ;-)

Oh yeah, that's the WTK that I mean (I should have written).  J2ME is
SUN buzzword denominating Java platform for devices with limited
capabilities, and the term is still used as far as I know.  WTK is a
toolkit for development of J2ME apps.  It contains CLDC and MIDP
libraries, a preverifier, emulator, and perhaps a couple more things
I'm missing.  I'm guessing that for compilation alone, you could do
without CLDC and MIDP, by substituting stub definitions.  But the
emulator and preverifier are quite critical.  Development without the
emulator is just an endless pain of repeated uploads to the phone, and
the preverifier does some sort of static checking or precompilation
necessary for the host runtime (or so have I read).

>> therefore even though the project itself is free, there is a
>> dependency on a non-free software.
> yep, as all Java programs before Sun delivered OpenJDK, known as the
> java-trap
> Doesn't OpenJDK include a part about J2ME^W WTK ?

I understand FSF's position on Java, but for cell phones it's
practically the only way.

As far as I know, OpenJDK is an implementation of J2SE (as opposed to
J2ME).  I tried a couple google searches back when I started working
on my app, but couldn't find free implementation of WTK.  Honestly it
didn't even occur to me that OpenJDK could contain (parts of) WTK,
I'll look if that's the case as soon as possible.

BTW, you can use the OpenJDK's javac to compile the thing, so at least
there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

> Maybe someday the base-layer can be free as well ?

True, I don't think there's anything profound in WTK that would make
it impossible to reimplement as free software.

> [...] In your case, your code is free software and you're conscious
> you're using "biased" tools, just try as much as possible to rely on
> free implementations when possible and that will do it ([...]as long as there's the
> possibility/easyness of using an alternative in your program to make it
> completely free, it should not be too much of a problem).

I'll look if there are alternatives.

> There may be a problem, though as I'm not sure that GPLv3 can be used
> with a program relying on non-free software (as long as it's not tightly
> linked I think it may be possible). Maybe you'll have to rely on an
> intermediary LGPL library to abstract from the non-free interfaces ?

That's a good point, it didn't really cross my mind.  I'll look into
that, too.  I'm happy to settle on LGPL before the situation around
GPL is clear.  I'm sole copyright holder, so that's not a problem.

> Hence, welcome at TuxFamily, I'll be happy to comment further on a
> dedicated page you'll write, stating how you cope with the issue of
> non-free tools using as much free software as possible ;-)

As I stated above, I'll look into that, but I doubt there's a way
around the ball-grip that SUN currently excercises, in this area
anyway.  If that's a show-stopper please be more blunt, English is not
my native language and I'm terrible at picking hints from written
conversation ;)

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+