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...

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.

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

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...

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...

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.

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

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...

By only giving them free software, we give them the ability to make changes, to adapt the technology to their needs.

That's a good argument, but not a good one for *only* giving them free software. What about the idea of giving them the best tool for the job? Wouldn't that that raise them up a bit? Such as a copy of Eclipse running on Java? Or do you want them to be stuck in emacs/C++ land, thinking that will help "raise the third world up" faster?

It also gives them an entrance into the IT market

The absolute BEST way to do THAT would be to load Windows on these machines.

No, the open source rule is arbitrary, petty, and will ultimately hurt the recipients of these machines.

Redhat *does* work on an Open/Free Java stack...

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...

Oh no! Sterility is spreading - soon everything will have inherited it and, erm, *wait just one minute here* ...
Sterility - heritable ? Spreading???? WFT?!?!?!?

not satisfied with what?

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?

Re:not satisfied with what?

I take their (Sun's) message as not a tentative step but rather a step to see when, or if, the OSS community will bite. They will also probably do something like they did with OpenOffice and make developers agree to a JCA in order to contribute code. If you are not familiar with this contract I'll summarize it for you: it legally negates the LGPL that comes with OpenOffice, prevents forking, and allows Sun to close source the codebase and claim all work as sole IP owner. People are sometimes so blinded by their hate for Microsoft that they ignore that Sun is really just a competitor that wants to be more of the same.

Well, given the specs for the OLPC 'puters

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

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

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

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

"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.

Debian?

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

Re:Debian?

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.

Sun is a Business...

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...

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?

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?

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?

Re:I'm sorry, but how?

Obviously you haven't ever tried to install Java on GNU/Linux running on anything else that an x86. The real reason is that as long as Java license is so restritive as to only allow it to be distributed as binary only, it will suck using it on other archs...funny since it was promised as the solution...remember "write once, run anywhere"?

I seriously doubt

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?

Re:I seriously doubt

I read GP's post as saying that it was rarely less than 50% as fast as C, and often significantly faster [than 50% as fast as C].

Which is to say, Java is typically somewhere between 50%-100% the speed of C. Specifically, this would mean it is typcially NOT as fast as C.

Not sure what you were saying, but this seems to be a _very_ reasonable claim, and perhaps a bit conservative. You can certainly craft some scenarios where Java could be faster, and I expect Java to typically be faster than half the speed of C.

Even in the java benchmark revisited, where the author is out to prove a point that Java is slow, Java performs fairly well (often better than 50% as fast as C using g++), and even sometimes being the fastest or in a dead heat with C (methcall and heapsort). This completely ignores that Java's performance will often be best in more complex applications, when it's own internal optimization can really pay off. Certainly, there are likewise instances where Java can be shown to be much slower than C as well.

Anyway, I can see your point in general, but I think so all the "extravagant claims about Java peroformance posts" to respond to, you picked the wrong one.

Debian?

The /. post mentions "support" from Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo, but nothing more. A press release [sun.com] from Sun contains a quote from Anthony Towns:

"We are really pleased to see Sun's increasing involvement in the free software community, from the opening of the Solaris Operating System source and now the re-licensing of Java technology to be compatible with GNU/Linux distributions, and are looking forward to building stronger ties with the Sun community in the future", said Anthony Towns, Debian Project Leader.

Marketing speak from Debian? Anyhow, it does confirm that Debian is convinced this is open enough "to be compatible."

Re:Debian?

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.

NOT "GNU/Linux friendly"

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"

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"

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.

Why would you want java on there anyway?

I mean, I know why, but it's going to run like shit. I'm not saying that Java programs are slow or anything, but running Java on top of your OS is just adding weight and complexity, and we're talking about systems with extremely minimal specifications anyway. The machines don't need to run every program out there and Java on the web (as transmitted to browsers) is likely losing importance what with the whole AJAX thing.

Just the windows install for the latest JRE is 7.1 MB. That's the compressed package. It probably blows up to be twice that size. Java also has some noticable memory consumption overhead. Is it worth it on more capable systems? Sure. Is it worth it on this little toy computer? Hell no.

Money.

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.

License terms?

What are the terms of the DLJ license that Sun has created for this? What part of it is Red Hat not happy with? The article doesn't seem to mention any of these details, except that Sun has changed to this new license, and that Red Hat doesn't think it goes far enough.

Anyone have the details, please?

CC No-No?

Recently I've seen arguments [open-xchange.org] that the Creative Commons license is incompatible with Debian distribution, even if the code accompanying the CC content is GPL. That same argument seems to fault the CC license for its anticommerce clause [open-xchange.org].

I've been sensing...

a whole lot of "peer pressure" in all areas of the industry against Sun's Java technology. The current "you should open-source it" demand doesn't sound new to my ears, I'm pretty sure I've been hearing it for years.

Although a platform in and of itself, Java is built on its own Object-Oriented language, and most people expect languages to be public-domain-ish, like C++, which is still a tremendously popular language despite its relative age and quirks.

However, when it comes to C++, there is no "official" implementation outside of the basic STL and C libraries. Java, on the other hand, isn't just a language, it comes with a platform that ties in with what most developers expect to have available when they use the language.

The dilemma is fairly obvious. If Sun tries to monopolize Java, Java will likely become marginalized (especially since it now competes on some levels with .NET) However, if Sun makes Java freer, Sun runs the risk of marginalizing themselves as a vendor.

In the meantime, others in the market (and other markets) will continue to apply pressure to get better access to the Java language/platform, simply because in terms of languages and platforms, openness is advantageous for everyone developing with it (unless you're talking to MS.)

And we're surprised by this how?

Red Hat is dead on the money with this. Unless Sun goes OSS for Java 100%, then it is still attached to the closed-source world and that causes certain problems.

More to the point, why do so many people have their hats on so tight that they can't think straight when it comes to Sun? Like Netscape and Oracle, people are willing to overlook a huge number of idiocies in certain companies in the name of united hate towards Microsoft as if Microsoft was the only closed source software publisher. In the end, THAT is what this about because even if every byte of Java's code was naked to the world, it isn't going to be any less slow or bloated. Fixing Java and spreading it is NOT what this is about.

Sun has plenty of baggage but positioned Java as if they could have their cake and eat it too: uber-cross-platform but closed source. Everyone should buy into it as if it came from the masses organically instead of top-down from Sun, as if it was open when it wasn't, and adopt it while shouting crap at Microsoft about Visual Basic, and so forth.

So now the OSS community which has so many coders so deeply psychologically invested in Java and the potential future, despite that future to date falling abysmally short of any of the initial propaganda, finds that they can't ignore the chickens who came home to roost and are laying eggs all over the sofa and desk.

Time to get with it and either pressure Sun or let the issue drop and come up with a totally OSS cross-platform language. Oh, I forgot. We have them but we still hold this childish fascination with the legend of Sun as competition for Microsoft when they are demonstrably not and their flagship OS Solaris is being kicked aside for SuSE, Ubuntu, and Fedora Core here, there, and everywhere. If the OSS community wants to continue this idiot face-off with Microsoft, the it needs to stop clinging to the apron-strings of companies that are in the end not one bit different.

Whichever way Sun goes on this, the OSS community can't let that be an influence or controlling factor in anything. Life must go on, Java or not. Not as though I use it for more than KoLMafia [sourceforge.net] anyhow. Give me something that is fast, open, and cross platform that lives and dies by its own credentials and value. NOT something crappy being clung to for psycho-political reasons.

Sun still afraid

In the previous article article [slashdot.org] Sun was asking for help "... how to best ... prevent forking and fragmentation".

It seems They are afraid some one will provide better support for java then Sun. Perhaps the worst possibility is that Micro$oft will provide that support. :p

grasping for straws

"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 ....

Good!

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.

Keeping these kids the hell away from Java is a good way to give them an advantage over all those poor kids learning to program in developed nations.

Let's not be too hard on SUN...

Sun got burned pretty bad by Microsoft when Billy boy and his corporate thugs decided to use their monopoly OS to hijack Java. I don't blame SUN for moving slowly with license changes. It was only their license that stopped Microsoft.

As far as Java being Open Source, hasn't Java source code been available for years? Are we talking open source or GPL'd?

The whole thing is lame.

Just read the Java license. One of the things limiting the distribution of the JRE is that you're not allowed to ship other products which change or replace certain parts of the JRE. Guess what software like gij, fastjar, kaffe and the likes are doing ? Other than this limitation I see no obstruction what so ever to ship Sun's JRE with your average Linux distribution. I mean; gimme a break, I can even package up the entire JRE with my (open source) software in order to make it act like a stand alone executable (or to make sure its always using a specific JRE).

Next to that I have full access to use the Java source code, I can use any knowledge I obtain from studying it and can even use parts and pieces from the code for my own good as long as I'm not trying to this this for commercial benefit. Isn't that also what open source is about, share and share alike. Spread the knowledge? As long as you're doing that you can just about do anything with the Java source.

So please, spare me all of this bullshit about restrictive licenses. I think the whole real issue is driven by a bunch of people in the background who are basicly hoping to get into projects which can make some money out of this. The GPL leaves enough playroom for this (see RHES) but other licenses appearantly leave out these options entirely. And how peculiar; these happen to be the exact licenses which have been under fire from just about every average OS zealot out there. Do I smell something fishy here ?

Leave Java Alone!

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.

Re:Leave Java Alone!

What else do you want?

I want a working Java browser plugin for x86-64 Linux systems.

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.

You'd be surprised at how many people use IBM JRE in enterprise rather than Sun's one, for example. And IIRC there were other major players, too. Sun never tried to restrict the ability of other companies to make compliant Java implementations, quite the opposite. Nor will keeping the source closed help - sooner or later, either CGJ/Classpath or Harmony will get to the point where they will be comparable with the latest Sun implementation.

To heck with Red Hat - rest of us should move on

Try leaving politics aside and do what benefits the most people.

Is Red Hat still a viable business? I am just curious - I don't use their stuff.

Also, didn't Red Hat buy JBoss? Why on earth would they not be strongly motivated to ship with built in JREs?

man...

What next, are they going to refuse to include the linux *kernel* because it doesn't use the latest version of the GNU license? Maybe they will throw in some crappy hurd kernel, then make their users go compile the linux kernel themselves if they want that... Then they can complain about how much linus is hurting open source software by not using the license they want.

Where do they get off demanding that sun or any company release its software under any particular license? Sun is *already* giving away their software for free. Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to sell software that it didn't even write in the first place. The people that are acting to *prevent* anyone from getting access to java are the linux distro makers who refuse to put java in.

This is nothing but an inconvenience for users. Who seriously does not go ahead and install sun java anyway? Who is not inconvenienced by the fact that most distros refuse to integrate it into their package management scheme?

There's literally no reason that red hat, ubuntu and others couldn't package sun java. 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. 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.

Re:man...

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.

Not Supported By Debian

> The new license does have the support ... Debian."

This is not true. The package has been added to Non-free (without adequate discussion IMHO) but it may not stay, and it most definitely will not go into Main.

This package is far from Free, and may not even be legal for Debian to distribute in Non-free.

JavaOne Announcement-- "Not if, but how"

I've been at JavaOne this week, and on the first day, Jonathan Scwartz and Rich Green publicly stated that it was "not question of if, but how" in regard to open sourcing Java. Go check Google [google.com] if you don't believe me.

This seems a pretty strong statement from Sun-- particularly compared to the waffling they've done in the past with respect to open source and Linux, yadda yadda. Given the conversations I had with various Sun-folk at the conference, it's pretty clear that there is a very strong pro-OSS camp within Sun, and we should be patient just a little bit longer.

And speaking of open source and Java, that was one of the big themes at JavaOne. Pretty much all the big name orgs here (Sun, Oracle, IBM, BEA, etc.) made a number of announcements about their open-source contributions. I know the debate on open source involves subtle and unresolved arguments, but apparently the powers-that-be at these corporations are convinced enough to buy in (quite literally, since they are ponying up serious money to fund the work). Of course, as profit-driven machines, they are doing it because of the anticipated return on such an investment, but that's still cool by me, since I love free speech/beer as much as any SlashDot AC, and will take any vindication of the same from just about anywhere I can get it....

Still warm down here!

It'll be a cold day in hell before Sun releases the source code to any software that people actually use. [slashdot.org]

OLTPC and Sun Java

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, the Sun JRE can't be, but one of the open-source Java implementations can; this is a small loss for One Laptop Per Child (it would be slightly better to have the genuine sun system, since the open versions are a bit behind, IIRC, though their compatibility with the version of the JRE whose features they implement is, as I understand, very good), and maybe a small loss for Sun -- it may lose some dominance, but among a market segment that's going to be spending a lot. I suppose it could hurt Sun if content providers target that group enough that the open-source platform chosen becomes a de facto standard, especially if "bug compatibility" with it becomes important, but how likely is that?

Really, except for Sun goodwill/PR, I don't see a big deal here.

Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me

BEGIN RANT. I'm not the biggest fan of Sun or Java. Java has become, to borrow Scott McNealy's famous description of Windows, a giant hairball. But for Redhat to get on their high horse and complain that Sun has yet to offer Java under an open source license stinks. What has Redhat ever innovated? They take software developed by the open source community, add some tweaks, and sell it for good money. Sun invented Java, spent large amount of money developing it and they can and should do whatever the hell they want with it. If they decide to license the sourcecode freely, great. If they don't, that's their business. Redhat should stick to their knitting...which is leaching off of others innovations. END RANT But seriously, I rarely if ever flame on Slashdot but these guys are rediculous. I promise to be more politic next time.

Re:Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me

They take software developed by the open source community, add some tweaks, and sell it for good money.

It's tempting to think like that. Actually, Red Hat subsidizes a very large amount of open source development, including kernel developers and other folks that do good work on some of the most essential parts of GNU/Linux. They make great contributions to the community--they are the community.

Java versus Subsistence Farming

The real reason that these $100 laptops won't have a JVM is because it will make children in developing countries realize that subsistence farming is way more kickass than programming in Java.

Screw Red Hat

They need to learn to get along. Here is what I think of their objections

http://rjdohnert.wordpress.com/2006/05/19/java-to- be-released-as-open-source-red-hat-says-not-enough / [wordpress.com]

Debian Legal discussion

This post (excerpt) on Debian Legal explains it pretty well. The license is the usual two-pronged legal and PR strategy Sun has been using over the last few years: claim to support open standards and software in public, while burying ridiculous and dangerous terms in their legal licenses.

From: "Brian M. Carlson" <...>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:02:34 +0000
 
[...]
> Could someone please explain to me why paragraph 2(f) does not pose a
> problem? I couldn't find ANY discussion about the license on Debian legal
> which surprises me a little bit, but then maybe I just missed the
> relevant parts of the license. Anyway, as a non-lawyer I'm surprised
> that we seem to accept that we have to "defend and indemnify Sun".
 
Also, section 4 poses a major issue. If, for any reason, the Linux
kernel doesn't do something that Java requires, then we are obligated to
either fix it or inform everyone who has acquired Java from us.
 
Section 10 is not possible with our infrastructure. The ftp-master
scripts merely remove the package from the tag database, not the archive
(at least until there are no dependencies), and not from all of our
mirrors.
 
Section 2(b) prohibits allowing people to develop software with Java
that is to be run on another system.
 
Section 2(c) prohibits us from using the software in conjunction with C,
C++, Perl, Python, or *any reasonable Turing-complete programming
language*.
 
Section 12 requires that this software be in non-US/non-free. It is
not, which is not only a violation of the license, but a violation of
United States law.
 
This conflicts with other project policies and exposes Debian/SPI to
major legal liabilities. I think that this should be removed from the
archive as soon as possible, preferably before the next mirror pulse.
[...]

(full message and license) [debian.org]

Redhat in a Nutshell

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.

effing wah.

So Red Hat doesn't like the license? Screw 'em--they can write their own Java, according to the open-source published code standard.

Negroponte is religious about open-source (according to his own definition) only? Then he probably won't get nearly as far as if he used the tools available, with the licenses as is.

Red Hat has been a blight on the world of commercial software companies, while spouting out BS about OSS that they don't even pretend to follow themselves. Fuck 'em all. My computer is no longer a religious shrine--it's just a tool.

"support of debian" is pushing it

they certainly view it as an improvement as it allows them to package it but they aren't going to change the DFSG to let it into main or anything like that.

and the sarge installer doesn't even offer non-free in a standard install any more! So installing its still going to require manually editing sources.list

Hey, Sun, here is another idea!

You can go the way of id: release older versions under the GPL: for instance you could GPL JDK 1.2.2 or even 1.3.1. That way everyone will be happy. Once JDK 1.7 hits the internet, JDK 1.4.2 will be GPL'ed.

Worst ever

This article , and its replies, gets my vote for "worst ever" on slashdot.

With millions dieing in Africa every year, the idea of sending them $100.00 laptops is worse than stupid. Send them food. Send them medicine. Do something to actually help them. That the shallow folks on this board would be arguing over Java and open source in this context is disgusting.

http://www.redcross.org/ [redcross.org]

Re:Negroponte's project

I'd rather not feed the trolls, but I'd like to point out that Negroponte's project is... Negroponte's project! If you would like to start your own laptops-for-starving-children project and do things differently, go right ahead! After all, its good that we're all Thinking Of The Children.

Re:Negroponte's project

Negroponte's project will fail for many reasons

You're right his project may fail in the sense that his laptops never get used on the wide scale that he is planning. But I disagree that the project is going to be a failure. The wide spread media he has recieved has publicly seeded the idea of computers in 3rd world countries. If his implementation fails it is only a matter of time before someone else comes in and completes it. With the open source community growing every day there is certainly the required software, and with hardware prices falling every day the hardware will not be an issue.
So if he fails it will be a failure on the political or buisness side of things, and an idea that stands to benefit so much of the world someone will eventually pick up the bricks and finish the project. So in that sense the project cannot and will not fail.

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch

As flamy as this AC's post may be, I'm afriad I have to agree with him or her. These are potentially serious "gotchas" that could cause real problems for devs who include java with their OSes and have apparently been overlooked. Sun hasn't exploited these sections of their license recently to my knowledge, but they wouldn't be there if they didn't intend to. Makes me wonder if they weren't trying for a dirty tactic there -- get the community dependent on their java and then exploit the license to unduly influence it. Read it yourself and think about what a corporate exec could do with this.

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch

Note to self: Do not include the words "asshole" or "bitch" in the title of an otherwise informative post.

Re:open source java compiler

Yes, but the runtime environment is much harder to do, and free implementations still lag behind.

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch

It would be far simpler if they disallowed anyone who creates a derivative work from calling it Java, or having the word 'Java' in the name, or even claiming compatibility with Java in ANY way except to the extent of admitting that the software was derived from Sun's Java.

Then let whatever forking or fragmentation Sun is worried about happen... they won't be part of anything called Java unless Sun adopts any such changes.

Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch

So the Linuxes that actually include Sun's Java in their package repositories will have to have alternative JREs/compilers be listed as blocking Sun's Java and vice versa. Moreover, they should be prepared to return to manual downloading requirements at a moment's notice.

I don't see an issue, as long as the maintainers are well aware of the issues.

Re:FYI: No consultation with the Debian community

Yeah, they do. If they have it in their repository for download, they do. Let's drop this Debian sainthood bullshit.
Want an uncompromising OS? Look elsewhere. [openbsd.org]

bitchy asshole mods are on crack (MOD PARENT UP)

-1, Troll? WTF? Mod the parent up, please!

Re:Java is a hairball... time for something new

Create something new, innovative... that Sun's patents lawyers can't touch.

Ha. Hahahahaha.

You don't quite understand the software patent problem, do you?