Slashdot Log In
Red Hat Not Satisfied with Sun's New Java License
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri May 19, 2006 05:29 PM
from the talking-coffee-related-smack dept.
from the talking-coffee-related-smack dept.
twofish writes "According to a Register article Sun Microsystems' new GNU/Linux-friendly Java license does not go far enough for Red Hat. Brian Stevens, Red Hat CTO, says Sun should have open-sourced Java instead. The new license does have the support of Canonical (main Ubuntu sponsor), Gentoo and Debian." From the article: "He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project, to bring affordable computing to children in developing nations. Negroponte wants only open source software on the machines, according to Red Hat, which is a member of the project."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:5, Insightful)
means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PC's
to children in developing nations is a bit of a cheap shot. The way it is stated, it makes Sun look
like some sort of terrible ogre, that is denying children access to computers, when it is the program
creator that does not allow Java on the laptops.
It is similar to the argument people make saying "corporations that make genetically modified food
are causing people in Africa to starve", in countries that forbid the import of genetically modified
food. The policy, not the companies making the food, are what is causing the lack of that particular
food to be used.
Don't get me wrong, it would be great if Sun made Java open source, but what they have now is not evil.
The software is free as in beer to use, and as such would add no more cost to the laptops, if installed, it would just conflict
with the philosophy of the program's founder.
Also, if you want to write your own JVM, Sun has written books [sun.com] to let you do just that.
It is not an easy project, it is similar to JBoss in complexity, but JBoss was written. If the CTO at
RedHat was that concerned about Java not being on the laptops, he could have part of his company work
on an open source JVM implementation. That company has a lot of resources, and would be more able
to manage a project of that complexity than several freelance developers in their free time.
Redhat *does* work on an Open/Free Java stack... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:5, Insightful)
The license has pretty few clauses that are good enough even for non-free; on the other hand, those "zealots" you're bashing typically have problems with one or two issues per license. Sun's piece of crap is actually worse than their previous license.
Parent
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
not satisfied with what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"No date has been set for open sourcing Java but Sun is anxious to get more developers involved in the JCP and using NetBeans to get their feedback."
What's this bonehead complaining about?
Well, given the specs for the OLPC 'puters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, given the specs for the OLPC 'puters (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Whose fault is it if it can't be used? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then that's Negroponte's problem, not Sun's. There's nothing in Sun's license that would prevent someone from bundling the JVM with whatever hardware you please.
Sun is a Business... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sun is a Business... (Score:4, Interesting)
The same is true of various other open source licenses.
And in any case, that doesn't answer my question as to how it would hurt their bottom line.
Parent
Honesty? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but how? (Score:4, Insightful)
I seriously doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
If Java is to run on the OLPC computer, it needs a smaller, simpler implementation. Sun provides all information neccessary to build one. It's up to Red Hat or any one other than them to make it.
And, BTW, teaching Java to kids?! What do you want? To scare them away?
NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like Red Hat has it's cake, now it wants to eat Sun's too. Me, I just want emerge not to bail when it gets to java.
Parent
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Money. (Score:4, Insightful)
grasping for straws (Score:4, Funny)
Well ahem, if that's his only good argument ....
Leave Java Alone! (Score:5, Informative)
Redhat in a Nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)
Before, the status quo was actually more palatable to RedHat - no free Linux distribution could legally distribute Sun's JDK/JRE and everyone complained. This also meant that there was a lot of interest in creating a free software Java solution - gcj, harmony, classpath, etc - something that RedHat has invested a lot in. Plus, RedHat could still support Sun's Java through RHEL.
Also, everything that JBoss has created is all open source, but all of it requires Sun's Java. I seriously doubt any of JBoss' major clients runs any part of JBoss on gcj. I think RedHat's next move was to start migrating JBoss' components so they could run on gcj as well, further providing momentum to the free software Java solution as well as moving the largest open source Java company (and its highly deployed Java Application Server) towards a non-Sun Java.
Now the circumstances are a bit different. I think Sun is hoping (and RedHat is dreading) that Java is now "free enough" - without being free software. Now all the distributions can legally provide Sun's JDK/JRE - even Debian, which is more or less the standard (though it is in the non-free section), and consequently Ubuntu, which is now the crowd favorite. Since perhaps the biggest complaint about Sun's Java has now been diffused, there's likely to be a shift in attitude towards free software Java. Why bother? But this is exactly the situation that RedHat doesn't want to be in. I really doubt they want to support gcj while essentially still endorsing Sun's Java through JBoss.
Obviously, this is all my speculation, so I could totally wrong. But it makes sense to me.
Re:Debian? (Score:4, Informative)
Before that, the Debian Project leader said someone [debian.org] apparently read the license, but not only was it definitly not analysed in public, but also apparently he did not think it proper to explain anything.
Debian's non-free is not for copyright violation, but for Freedom violation.
Parent
Re:Debian? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:man... (Score:4, Informative)
What next, are they going to refuse to include the linux *kernel* because it doesn't use the latest version of the GNU license? Why would they do that. The kernel is free software whereas Java never has been anything like free software.
Where do they get off demanding that sun or any company release its software under any particular license? They only control the nature of what they ship
Sun is *already* giving away their software for free. Only in the limited sense that Internet Explorer is "free". It comes with very limited freedom and lots of strings.
Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to sell software that it didn't even write in the first place. Luck had nothing to do with it. It is free by design, and were it not free, it would not have received the contributions.
The people that are acting to *prevent* anyone from getting access to java are the linux distro makers who refuse to put java in. It has been Sun's decisions to restrict its freedom from the outset, which is why many people who cared most about Java have abandoned it for better alternatives.
This is nothing but an inconvenience for users. Who seriously does not go ahead and install sun java anyway? There are any number of languages with a free or open source base whose users do not just go ahead and install Java, and their numbers will continue to swell as long as Java is proprietary.
Who is not inconvenienced by the fact that most distros refuse to integrate it into their package management scheme? Apparently Sun is not inconvenienced, and it is their call to make the license free or proprietary.
There's literally no reason that red hat, ubuntu and others couldn't package sun java. Only if you are someone who can't tell the difference between Free / Open Source and proprietary software.
They only do it out of a desire to strongarm sun into using a different license which will not provide any benefit to their user base. Their current user base or their potential user base? The Sun directions have greatly restricted the former. You may be right that those who care about programming and distribution freedom have already moved on which is why there is no one asking for it any more. I stopped asking quite a while ago and ported away from Java.
If I was a shareholder, I would punish them severely for this nonsense, as it doesn't serve any kind of business end that I can see, and is more reminiscent of the behavior of the FSF than a for profit company. Someone needs to remind them that they are obligated to pursue the ends of their users and their shareholders before anything else. Of course, and by the same logic, they really should be packaging Visual Basic, instead of Java in the first place.
Parent