Red Hat Not Satisfied with Sun's New Java License

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."

That's kind of a cheap shot...

[nebaz (453974)]

This may not be a popular sentiment here, but I think the statement the failure of open source Java
means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PC's ... to bring affordable computing
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...

[jbailey999 (146222)]

Uhh.. Redhat *does* work on a Free Java stack. Look at the commits to http://www.classpath.org/ [classpath.org] and that almost all of the gcj work is done by RedHat folks.

Re:That's kind of a cheap shot...

[AuMatar (183847)]

I disagree. The idea is to help raise the third world up, not keep them dependant on the first world. By only giving them free software, we give them the ability to make changes, to adapt the technology to their needs. It also gives them an entrance into the IT market, one of the few tech areas that can be entered into with no formal training and done from anywhere in the world. These are very good reasons to say OSS only. If Java wants to be a player there, that up to them. But OSS only is the right option for the laptop program.

Re:That's kind of a cheap shot...

[masklinn (823351)]

I think the funniest part is that the license seems to have Debian's support... and the Debian guys are just about the "worst" OSS zealots (in Stallman's sense of OSS) you can find, I'd like to get more infos of that from guys who read it but if the debian-legal madmen have endorsed or considered Java's new license "good enough"... duh...

Re:That's kind of a cheap shot...

[KiloByte (825081)]

No, no one of those "debian-legal madmen" you're talking about endorses that license. In fact, only a single person (although it's the DPL) dared to say that it's acceptable for Debian's non-free section, and even then after a personal meeting with a Sun's person on the DebConf.

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.

Re:That's kind of a cheap shot...

[SnowZero (92219)]

Here's the discussion [debian.org] about it on debian-legal. The new debian package for Sun's Java(tm) is intended to go into non-free, indicating they don't think it's really open source. Furthermore, it seems the debian-legal people were not consulted first, and they are not happy with the license even for a non-free package.

not satisfied with what?

[sfjoe (470510)]

Sun never said the new license was the final step. Contrarily, they said they are going to progress slowly:
"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

[by Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's a good thing they won't run Java.

Re:Well, given the specs for the OLPC 'puters

[AuMatar (183847)]

Agreed. Their arms would be too tired to crank before the JVM finished classloading.

Whose fault is it if it can't be used?

[NSash (711724)]

"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."

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...

[ZSpade (812879)]

Not a Charity. I think it would be fantastic if they opened up for everyone. But they have to look out for ol' number one first, or there won't be any Sun at all. I'm sure they could make it work though, this just isn't their priority, and shouldn't have to be. Red hat may not be happy with it, but last time I checked, Redhat's glee doesn't fill Sun's coffers.

Re:Sun is a Business...

[Eric Smith (4379)]

Easy, they still hold the exclusive license this way

If they were to GPL it, they would STILL hold the exclusive license. GPLing it doesn't give away the ownership, and it doesn't prevent the owner from also licensing it under other terms.

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.

Honesty?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Okay ... Redhat is a competitor to Sun. Redhat is supporting an alternative Java implementation. Doesn't that make it likely Redhat has a slanted viewpoint, and would be presenting a slanted viewpoint?

I'm sorry, but how?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Java technology is still free to download and develop against. Why exactly does it not being fully OSS prevent it from being on these laptops? It sounds to me like another example of OSS zealots taking their passions too far. You're going to prevent technology from being put in the hands of those in need, just because you don't agree with their license?

I seriously doubt

[rbanffy (584143)]

I seriously doubt the current implementation of Java would fit inside a 400 MHz x86 computer that's designed more to be energy-efficient and small than to be fast.

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"

[Eric Smith (4379)]

This license isn't even remotely "GNU/Linux friendly". It's neither "open source" nor "free software". It's "The Emperor's New License". Sun wants to have their cake and eat it too; they want the benefits of open source without actually opening the source.

Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly"

[0xABADC0DA (867955)]

Well if you actually RTFA, Red Hat wants to hack the JVM so that it supports real-time features. So in other words, they want their own Red Hat Realtime Java fork. Wtf up with that? Sun gives them a distributable Java and they say they also need to hack up their own version of it.

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.

Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly"

[Eric Smith (4379)]

Jeezus, people, get over this self-righteous trip about source code. As an SE, I appreciate having source code available, but will in general just run what works.

That's EXACTLY why it would be better for it to be open source (or free software). Then we could actually hack together a working Java plugin for Linux on 64-bit Athlon64/Opteron platforms, since Sun is apparently unwilling to do so. That's just ONE example of how the current closed-source JDK is deficcient but could be fixed if it was open source.

Money.

[DAldredge (2353)]

If Sun fully opensources Java like Redhat wants them to it will result in Sun losing millions per year in license fees from IBM and others. This will harm Sun, one of Redhat's major opponents.

grasping for straws

[icepick72 (834363)]

"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,"

Well ahem, if that's his only good argument ....

Leave Java Alone!

[wizardmax (555747)]

I'm really tired of people railing on Sun for not open sourcing Java. Leave Sun and Java out of it. Its semi-open source and it works! No fragmentation. Works on multiple platforms. What else do you want? You want a fully open source language? Use Python. One of the things I absolutely love about Java is that there is One Java. One JVM (that anyone really needs). I don't have to deal with many different JVM's with different problems. Simply this, look at Linux, its good and all, but its 80% done and will never be done. I don't want that to happen to Java too. Simply, leave my Java alone.

Redhat in a Nutshell

[joeytsai (49613)]

If you consider RedHat and their recent acquisition of JBoss, their response to Sun is quite understandable. After all, previous versions of Java were even less free than they are now and I don't remember RedHat saying anything. Why do they say something now?

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?

[Cyclops (1852)]

I suppose Debian has only accepted it into non-free?

Indeed, but without approval from the legal guys [debian.org], even though he later on said something in his defense [debian.org], but clearly not well thought enough to make a decision (eg, admits no knowledge of US law).

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.

Re:Debian?

[KiloByte (825081)]

Not from Debian, just from Anthony Towns. He was soundly thrashed [debian.org] for this on debian-legal and debian-devel -- he's pretty much the only person who seems to believe Sun's new license is any good.

Re:man...

[expro (597113)]

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.