IBM Offers to Help Sun Open Up Java

dave writes "ESR has opened the issue of pressuring Sun to open source Java, and today IBM throws in their own commitment toward this end. IBM has published an open letter to Sun, proposing that the two companies collaborate on an independent project to open source Java, saying that IBM is ready to provide technical resources and code for the open source Java implementation while Sun provides the open source community with Sun materials, including Java specifications, tests and code."

How nice of IBM..

[grub (11606)]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here: IBM sounds touchy-feely about open source but how would they react if Sun were to offer to help IBM open up AIX?

Re:How nice of IBM..

[psykocrime (61037)]

First thing... what are the chances of a true first post getting modded UP!?! What has happened to the slashdot we all knew and loved?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here: IBM sounds touchy-feely about open source but how would they react if Sun were to offer to help IBM open up AIX?

Second thing... bad example, since IBM has already released stuff from AIX as OSS (see the whole SCO vs. IBM debacle)... and they could never open-source the whole thing, because of licensing issues for the base SysV stuff it's built on.

Unless IBM was to buy SCO... in which case, who knows, AIX might just get open-sourced. :-)

Re:How nice of IBM..

[ulrikp (64196)]

If Microsoft "borrowed" GPLed code and tried to hide it not only would they open themselves up to a serious lawsuit from the copyright holders (with serious monetary penalties), but they could theoretically end up having to share any source code that came in contact with the GPLed code.

This is what the FUDsters would have us believe, but it's not true. As Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the FSF, has repeatedly pointed out [wikipedia.org], the GPL is a license, not a contract.

One of the consequence os this is that you can't force someone to open up their own code if they link against GPL'ed code in violation of the license. At most, you can force them to stop using the GPL'ed code.

See this lengthy rebuttal [groklaw.net] by Pamela Jones of Groklaw fame, or this [lwn.net] more accessible, shorter version.

Ulrik

Re:How nice of IBM..

[dnoyeb (547705)]

Without a doubt. I can't help but smile at the whole thing. I am sure Sun would rather die than allow IBM to 'help' them.

Nevertheless, I just dont understand what opening Java is supposed to mean? ANSI-Java? I don't get it, anyone can make their own JVM and release it as a Java JVM long as it conforms to the JLS right!? IBM has already done this right?

Re:How nice of IBM..

[sab39 (10510)]

Not true - GNU Classpath is JDK1.4 compatible in many areas [kaffe.org], and pretty much complete at JDK1.2 level [kaffe.org] with the sole exception of CORBA (which has interesting license issues) and Swing, which is being actively worked on (there's a screenshot [redhat.com] of Classpath running a Swing demo that's limited to buttons and checkboxes, and it actually works!).

Sure, cloning Swing and many of the other massive libraries in recent JDK versions is a mammoth undertaking and life would be a great deal easier for everyone if Sun would open up the reference implementation. But don't discount the work of the people who are already doing it - they're further along than you think!

(BTW, the reason those URLs point to kaffe.org is just because my own domain for them expired; kaffe.org graciously agreed to host the files, but the results are independently generated and not biased in favor or against any of kaffe's "competitors". Having said that, Kaffe is another project that's made leaps and bounds recently. There are, in fact, multiple completely Free/Open Source implementations of Java now that can run many high-profile Java apps, including Eclipse and Tomcat)

Re:How nice of IBM..

[Coz (178857)]

Brav-o. Good summary. One little thing - if Sun open-sources their own code, it's not duplicating the API - it's releasing it. Now, if there's IP in that code that's locked up somewhere, or licensed somehow, that's a problem - one that IBM should be able to help solve, given their library of IP rights.

If I were at Sun, one of my concerns would be which of their development projects to open, and when. "Java" isn't just Java 2 Standard Edition - the Enterprise Edition and Mobile/Wireless Edition have lives of their own; then there's (still) Jini and all their XML stuff. Sun is sinking cash into lots of different efforts, trying to establish Java in market niches (like mobile phones) and building in tool support, documentation, etc. Throwing the doors open and letting the world at their code base may not be the smartest thing at the moment (esp. if there's licensed IP in there somewhere that they need to go negotiate to open, or remove).

I'd like to see them phase in open-source. Give 'em six months or so for the 3 major "platforms", including all the java.* and javax.* packages, then another six months for the com.sun.* packages - with an expectation that other players would start working on them immediately. After that, every new thing they do should be opened no later than beta... and the JCP should allow participants to collaborate on implementations at the source-code level, so JCP members could work in semi-privacy until the code got fully opened at their beta release.

But that's just an idea....

Re:How nice of IBM..

[AstroByte (718093)]

Come on then, Mr. Big Mouth. When YOU pick up the Virtual Machine spec and implement your own VM from scratch, THEN I'll believe you when you say any monkey can write a VM. In the meantime, talk about things you actually know something about.

I HAVE written a VM from scratch, and worked on Sun and IBM's Virtual Machines. I can tell you from experience that writing a VM is definately not a trivial task. In fact, it is probably harder than the libraries. The libraries are by definition Java code. The major problem is the sheer size of them.

A modern VM on the other-hand, covers a wide range of techniques. Writing an efficient thin-locking implementation is far from trivial - the code is extremely complex, and even a slight mistake can lead to race conditions, leading to unexpected behaviour which is very difficult to track down.

Likewise, a modern garbage collector is an advanced field in itself (e.g. parallel collectors, generational collectors, etc.). Again, a simple mistake can take weeks to find.

Have you also forgotten about the JIT? Or more accurately a DAC (dynamic adaptive compiler). Whereas a standard compiler can spend as long as it likes optimising the code and be slow as hell, a modern VM must profile the code on the fly, and transfer control between compiled and interpreted modes efficiently. Again, not trivial.

Even following the spec is non-trivial. There's enough grey areas to cause a VM implementor to pull their hair out.

Sun and IBM have large teams working on these VM's, many from research backgrounds and with PhDs (including me). Thanks for calling us all monkeys.

Re:How nice of IBM..

[by Anonymous Coward]

You're almost right.

Not "any monkey" can write a VM. They're non-trivial (just ask the Kaffe folks), and IBM has several irons in the fire. As well as licensing Sun's VM (and improving it vastly for their customers) they also have their own VM under development, entirely free of Sun IP.

On the issue of class libraries, you're also nearly right. Swing would be hard work, and pointless. There's a reason that eclipse [eclipse.org] doesn't use Swing... IBM isn't interested in it - it sucks.

IBM also has their own set of class libraries under development - entirely free of Sun IP.

So, in my opinion, this is just a huge red herring. IBM has enough projects under heavy development to release a completely open-source VM and set of class libraries within 18 months if they want to.

Personally, I think it's going to happen, and this is them tapping on Sun's window going "if you don't do it, we will, and we'll do it without using your IP".

Re:How nice of IBM..

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that this comparison is totally valid. IBM isn't marketing AIX as a counter-culture product that challenges the dominance of the 'evil monopolist' Microsoft.

Sun is trying to have it both ways- claim their language will "free" them from the clutches of MS while trying to clutch the language specification/certification for its own.

Re:How nice of IBM..

[LibrePensador (668335)]

I am with you on this one. Sun opens up Java and IBM does the same with their Lotus suite?

A gesture is met with a gesture and we all win.

It will never happen.

Re:How nice of IBM..

[d00ber (707098)]

IBM put JFS the AIX journaling filesystem into Linux. They might well respond by saying yes. I do admit that given IBMs long history of tweaking SUN (Eclipse [eclipse.org] anyone?) that this offer by IBM might not be taken that well. OTOH Sun has never seemed that hell bent on monetizing Java - the licensing and conformance testing fees probably don't begin to cover development costs.

They say are trying to build a community around Java and it seems to me that given those two points Sun really should release Java to the open source community.

I think this really would give Java a HUGE boost over .NOT.

Besides, JBoss and Linux distros make money on packaging and supporting Free but hugely complex systems.

Re:How nice of IBM..

[fantastic (398233)]

Dear IBM

Can you opensource DB2, we don't have a database at Sun so this would really help

Why doesn't IBM open source it's own VM?

[GGardner (97375)]

IBM has a less well known Java VM for embedded systems called j9. This was developed in a clean-room way. If IBM wants an Open Source, commercial quality VM, there's nothing stopping them from opening this one.

Re:Why doesn't IBM open source it's own VM?

[gl4ss (559668)]

maybe that's exactly what they would like to do?

*IBM is ready to provide technical resources and code*

Re:Why doesn't IBM open source it's own VM?

[pragone (756766)]

Perhaps they acknowledge that if a standard is desired, they should contribute to a popular JVM rather than keep working on one themselves. I think that's a good way of thinking for OS.

Not said...

[ackthpt (218170)]

Hi Rob,

[Open Source Java or you risk relegating it, while .NET on commodity hardware gobbles up both the development and hardware markets to Sun's eventual doom. Work with us and Java will be strong as many eyes and hands (ours included) clean it up and expand it where need and demand lay. Ignore this request and we'll pick it up at your bankruptcy auction.

Regards,
Rod

Open letter

[gid13 (620803)]

As much as I love open source and even openness in other forms (like letters), I can't help but think that open letters tend to be more about making news than actually seriously expecting things to work the proposed way.

Nice.

[NegativeK (547688)]

This is a win-win situation for IBM. If Sun goes for it, IBM gets it's hand in the development of an open implementation of Java. If Sun doesn't, IBM can say that they tried. Either way, IBM appeals to the open source community.

As for Sun, it's almost lose, lose. If Sun goes for it, they lose complete control over Java, which is a cash crop for them. If they don't, they look stingy to the open source community, and alienate a lot of us.

Poor sun, nice IBM. .

Re:Nice.

[nsayer (86181)]

If Sun goes for it, they lose complete control over Java, which is a cash crop for them.

If they dual license it, then they get to retain complete control over the commercial fork of it. Sun would be unique in that no other entity would have the rights that Sun does to use Java other than under the GPL.

I think that would keep Sun pretty firmly in the driver's seat.

If IBM is serious about this and Sun refuses to play ball, then I'd be surprised if IBM didn't suddenly decide to champion the Kaffe project [kaffe.org] or perhaps even start their own open Java system.

IBM, being, well, IBM, will have an open Java one way or another, if that's really what they want.

What about gjc?

[sleepingsquirrel (587025)]

IBM doesn't needs Sun's help/permission. Why don't they start to contribute to the already existing free java stuff like gjc [gnu.org] and GNU Classpath [gnu.org]?

Re:What about gjc?

[vidarh (309115)]

IBM already has it's own Java compiler: Jikes.

IBM doesn't NEED Sun's help with providing the software, but without a commitment from Sun IBM would be in the same situation with them as with Microsoft: They can change the specs whenever they feel like it to keep their competitive advantage over other tools.

Frankly I see IBM's comments as an ingenious PR move. Either Sun opens Java, and it will be a great PR win for IBM and great for business, or Sun doesn't in which case it's a big PR win for IBM towards customers (look guys, we're promoting open standards, but Sun just doesn't want to play ball - do you REALLY want to get tied in to a company like that?)

Re:What about gjc?

[dominator (61418)]

IBM could do as you suggest. Then again, they have already written their own Java compiler (Jikes [ibm.com]), at least one of their own JVMs, [ibm.com] their own servlet container (Jakarta [apache.org]), etc...

I'd recommend looking at this page [ibm.com] for more info on IBM + Java + OSS.

IBM has already written at least one high-quality JVM implementation which is not OSS because of contracts that IBM has with Sun. Of course, suggesting that IBM work on GCJ and Classpath has some merit in and of itself. But realize that IBM has sunk untold man-hours and dolars into developing its own JVM - resources that they now wish to contribute to the community at-large as OSS. I personally can't blame them if they didn't wish to spend a similar amount of resources on GCJ and Classpath when what they've got works.

Perhaps with this Open Letter IBM is looking for permission to open up the code. Perhaps they are looking to collaborate with Sun to create an even better project. Perhaps this is all just marketing/PR bs. Time will tell.

Dom

Re:What about gjc?

[radish (98371)]

Jakarta is neither a servlet container, nor an IBM project. Jakarta is the general project which groups all the Java related work within the Apache Foundation, so there isn't really a Jakarta product as such. The servlet container within Jakarta is Tomcat, but again, that's not an IBM project.

ESR: not so bad after all?

[Hrolf (564645)]

So does this mean the Slashdotters who claimed that ESR damaged the open source community via his letter to Sun will now retract their views? It seems we're closer to an open source Java as a result of his opening salvo (little gun-toting humor there) than we were before he wrote his letter.

Re:ESR: not so bad after all?

[hambonewilkins (739531)]

Eric! What have you been up to?!

Sorry, forgot, I'll just check your webpage for info.

Licensing issues

[MAXOMENOS (9802)]

Q: What's to stop Sun and IBM from open-sourcing the JDKs they have now? A: Third-party IP. Odds are, both Sun's and IBM's JDKs are chock full of third-party IP. Even the stuff that IBM implements in a "clean room way" probably contains IP that IBM licensed from somebody else. One could interpret IBM's gesture as offering to produce parts of the JDK that are free from IP encumbrances.

Listen to Ganesh Prashad

[IGnatius T Foobar (4328)]

Everyone's read ESR's open letters, but the real, convincing, extremely well-written case was done by Ganesh Prashad in a Linux Today editorial yesterday [linuxtoday.com]. Ganesh lays it out in terms Sun can understand, without ESR's controversial style. This article is a must read for us, but it's also something that should be absolutely wallpapered in Scott McNealy's office, and maybe his home too.

Ganesh very clearly demonstrates how Sun will lose J2EE's 'lingua franca of business logic' status to .NET if they don't let the community galvanize and help out, and the only way to do that is to open source the Java core.

Missing the point

[TheRealMindChild (743925)]

I think most people, and obviously IBM, are missing some key points to why Sun treats Java how it does.

Things are tight fisted because Sun wants a solid, CONSISTANT platform. This was a MAJOR REASON for the lawsuit that they fought and WON against Microsoft and their VM implementation.

Opening it up not only kills that idea (anyone can alter the platform specifications for whatever selfish reasons), but it would undermine all of the fight they have put up at this point.

Re:Missing the point

[CaptnMArk (9003)]

You are sugesting a fork in Java development.

This will only happen (in a bad way) if Sun are neglecting Java development and not doing things people want.

(I do personally belive Java could stand some cleaning up, but it doesn't have to happen overnight)

Re:Missing the point

[DavidNWelton (142216)]

The code can be open without the specification and the name being open. You can download Apache and hack it, but you can't call it Apache, for instance. Same goes for TeX.

Re:Missing the point

[mcrbids (148650)]

Things are tight fisted because Sun wants a solid, CONSISTANT platform. This was a MAJOR REASON for the lawsuit that they fought and WON against Microsoft and their VM implementation

And, open-source software would be inconsistent because.......?

Inconsistent, like Apache [apache.org]?

or, perhaps, MySQL [mysql.org]?

I get it. You mean inconsistent like this [kernel.org], this [postgresql.org], or this [openoffice.org]?

Oh, the above aren't languages, like php [php.net] or perl [perl.org]?

Eh, wait a minute. These are all *successful* projects, that are consistent?

If Sun were to open Java sources, it would be trivial to introduce a license (EG: GPL) that would largely offset forking of the codebase. Their best bet would be to pull a "QT [trolltech.com]" - open the source as GPL, then sell commercial licenses.

Java is not PHP

[jtheory (626492)]

And, open-source software would be inconsistent because.......?

You mention Apache, MySql, Perl, PHP, and so on, but none of these projects are at risk of a malicious fork the way Java is.

We all know what Microsoft did with Java the first time around -- added in a bunch of MS-only extensions and more subtle incompatibilities, then shipped their version with every version of Windows, and put out an IDE that encouraged the use of their proprietary extensions. They also put a lot of work into making their JVM the fastest one out there, which further encouraged its use (and misuse).

Why in the world wouldn't they do that again, given this golden opportunity? Dual licensing, GPL restrictions, etc., don't help from what I can see.

Okay, under the GPL they would have to distribute it for free -- no problem, that's what they were doing before. Ah, and they'd have to release the source -- again, no problem, since it's all Windows-only extensions that cannot be supported in a cross-platform Java (do you think Sun really wants to be playing catch-up with MS, anyway?).

Java on the server would still be safer than on the client. MS could add in extensions to encourange interaction with .NET and other MS software, but you still have developers who make a choice that's (hopefully) informed about lock-in. But Java on the client would be back under total MS control.

It wouldn't matter if they couldn't call it "Java". It would simply be the same old jview.exe that ran when you hit a JNLP link, applet, or application JAR.

Am I missing something here? I'm not neccessarily against open-sourcing Java (because I'd feel slightly safer, and I think the GUI libs would get a boost), but I think this needs to be addressed first.

Whoa...

[bersl2 (689221)]

Did ESR just bitch, and things actually happened?

I'm impressed; unless he has an "in," of course...

MySQL License

[attobyte (20206)]

Could Sun license it under some terms like MySQL where you could deveople opensource projects with out buying a license. If you want to keep your product closed you would have to buy a license from Sun. I know they are very two different beasts so that is why I am asking.

Open source Java already exists.

[fdragon (138768)]

What about the already existing Open Source Java implimentations?

GNU Compiler for Java [gnu.org] is available from the FSF. There is also work to make a Mozilla plugin for using GCJ to allow Java Applets to run.

Kaffe [kaffe.org] PersonalJava 1.1 compliant Java.

Kaffe once shipped with RedHat. GCJ currently ships with most major linux distributions right now.

Open Source dangers...

[brasten (699342)]

McNealy addressed this issue year or so ago...

The problem they're afraid of is Microsoft embracing & extending Java. The ability that Sun had to sue Microsoft and force them to cease their modifications would no longer exist.

Now imagine Bill Gates at home in his Medina mansion.. (only 10 minutes away from here actually... sad...). Everywhere he tries to push .NET and his vision, Java's there. Java's beating him, or right behind him, on almost every front, and for the better part of the last few years, he's been unable to combat this enemy with any major success. Now imagine someone hands him the source code and tells him he can fork it however it wants. What would he do?

I don't know. And for the time being, I'm fine not knowing...

Re:Open Source dangers...

[nate1138 (325593)]

The ability that Sun had to sue Microsoft and force them to cease their modifications would no longer exist.

That's what the GPL is for. Who cares if MS modifies it if their modifications have to be open source?

Sun & IBM have a good alliance

[joelparker (586428)]

Sun & IBM both want Java to succeed.

But does IBM honestly think that open-source
is the best path to creating successful software?
If so, how about an open-source WebSphere & DB2?

It would be great if IBM could use its muscle
to move Java forward in the areas that need it,
like advocating for open-source J2EE servers,
and ideally more sensible ways to deploy J2EE.

Anyone here playing with Java 1.5?
Sun made things more sensible like
autoboxing and generics and loops--
how about making J2EE more sensible?

IMHO, Sun & IBM both need this to happen
before MS gets momentum on the big servers.

Cheers, Joel

Like Fidel?

[ClosedSource (238333)]

This offer reminds me of Fidel Castro's hilarious offer to the US to send election observers to Florida in light of the 2000 presidential election SNAFU.

Just wondering...

[JohnnyCannuk (19863)]

but is there an "Open Source" C? or C++?

I mean, these are Open Standards right? So the Language spec is not really OSS, but I can down load it from ANSI and implement it if I like, right?

So, why doesn't somebody just get the freely available Java spec and implemented? Isn't that what the GCJ is doing? Isn't that Open Source? Why doesn't everyone whine to IBM to Opensource THEIR implementation of the spec, or BEA JRockit or Apple?

Sun acts as the keeper of the flame for the various Java specs, in concert with the JCP (which is an open organization BTW). Those specs are free to read and implement. FWIW, I think Sun has done a great job of keeping Java open and compatible, especially when MS tried to "embrace and extend" in '97 - '99.

I say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:A Question

[pubjames (468013)]

What changed, specifically?

IBM are being very intelligent. They are moving with the market.

It used to be that everyone in the IT world was closed and proprietary. OSS is changing that, and IBM know it. IBM are going with the flow, not fighting it.

Re:A Question

[Wudbaer (48473)]

Also IBM has not too much to lose. Sure, they produce and sell a lot of software. But they are still one of the leading hardware companies and are moving more and more towards a consulting and service oriented business model. So what do they have to lose ? Some unsold AIX lincenses ? DB2, Domino and WebSphere can or will soon be able to run as well on a RS6K machine (or what they are called this week) running Linux than on a RS6K machine running AIX. Sure, AIX still has a lot to offer Linux does not, but for that they still will move a machine with AIX.

Re:A Question

[Mr. Slippery (47854)]

But they are still one of the leading hardware companies

Exactly. I spent some time contracting at IBM, and that's the main thing I learned about their business model: all the software stuff they do has the goal of selling IBM hardware. That's a plan that plays quite well with open source / free software.

Re:A Question

[segmond (34052)]

Now a days, they are for open standards? The same guys that opened up the PC architecture, right? in early 80's or wait, say 20 years ago? As far as I know, that is the biggest open standard look how it changed the world, look at the companies it built. Whenever people talk about how IBM acts as they see fit, it is usually history lessons that they read about the 60's and 70's...

Re:A Question

[Usquebaugh (230216)]

Hah,

opened the architecture, thay had ISA ripped from them, I think Compaq cleaned room the BIOS which led to the clones. MCA, remember that. Token ring. SNA.

IBM in the 80s was at it's most arrogant. They had beaten everybody including the DOJ. The salesmen were insufferable. Then M$ changed the landscape by beating IBM at their own game.

Only in the last five years has IBM embraced Open Standards. Even now one of their hardware lines is still very closed, AS/400.

Re:A Question

[PCM2 (4486)]

One way IBM adapts to today's computing climate is by morphing into more of a service organization than merely a software vendor. So heterogeneous systems, multiple implementations based on open standards, and interoperability at the enterprise level all add up to more problems for IBM's professional services organization to fix, ergo more revenue.

Re:A Question

[HoldmyCauls (239328)]

I think it's humility. I remember reading on here an article about the CEO of IBM chastising Microsoft for, essentially, being too big for its britches, and specifically saying that they themselves had learned from their own similar mistake. If John Nash was right, the best way to succeed is to succeed together. I think IBM feels empathically as well as intelligently that that is so. Microsoft may in the future, as well.

If the open development and open business models take hold, I think we may see a paradigm shift in industry (though possibly only in software) where no one makes a product, but each (company, community, individual) may add something or change something, and if it takes off well and the resources are there, they will be compensated.

People who say that this model won't work forget (or maybe never learned!) that people are often noticed for their abilities despite the fact that they may not be employed by a company in that field, or may not be particularly well-versed in it, but because they can still understand a particular problem and solve it well.

This is my hope, at least.

Re:Doubtful...

[egomaniac (105476)]

Does anyone actually think this is actually gonna happen? Sun has always impressed me as a Microsoft wannabe. The only reason they are currently allying themselves with Linux is because "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Oh, bullshit.

When Microsoft wants to include a new technology (such as their web browser), they integrate it in such a way that you are forced to use it, can't replace it with something else, and end up using it for unrelated functions whether you want to or not. And half the interface is undocumented and inaccessible to people outside of Microsoft.

Sure, you can download and install your own web browser, but IE is always there, sucking up resources, no matter what you do.

When Sun wants to integrate something new into Java, the JCP develops a standard API for accessing it. Sun develops or licenses their own implementation of it, but allows you to use any implementation you choose so long as it implements the standard. Other VM distributors are free to replace Sun's implementation with their own. In fact, it's remarkably easy to be completely unaware of which implementation you are using.

If Microsoft had developed a standard web browsing API which allowed you to swap out IE in favor of Mozilla, and allowed computer manufacturers the right to do so on preinstalled machines if they chose, nobody would be complaining about the IE integration.

Well, that's exactly how Sun would have chosen to do it, based on their track record. They make it remarkably easy to swap out portions of the runtime library with alternate implementations.

Re:Doubtful...

[Frymaster (171343)]

I haven't seen Sun do anything that leads me to believe they are really for open systems.

then perhaps you should take a look at experimentalstuff.com [experimentalstuff.com] - sun's site for experimental code. lots of it is opensource including an entire operating system (chorus os [experimentalstuff.com]).

looks like a committment to opensource to me.

Re:Doubtful...

[by Anonymous Coward]

*Cough* OpenOffice *Cough*