Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Red Hat Not Satisfied with Sun's New Java License

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 19, 2006 04:29 PM
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nebaz (453974) * on Friday May 19 2006, @04:31PM (#15368999)
    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.

  • not satisfied with what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sfjoe (470510) on Friday May 19 2006, @04:33PM (#15369015)
    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? by Eric Smith (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @04:44PM
    • Re:not satisfied with what? by MooUK (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @06:45PM
    • Re:not satisfied with what? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sbrown123 (229895) on Friday May 19 2006, @07:28PM (#15369933)
      (http://slashdot.org/)
      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.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:not satisfied with what? by bjarvis354 (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @07:30PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:not satisfied with what? by xenocide2 (Score:2) Saturday May 20 2006, @01:06AM
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2006, @04:33PM (#15369019)
    I guess it's a good thing they won't run Java.
  • by NSash (711724) on Friday May 19 2006, @04:34PM (#15369020)
    (Last Journal: Monday April 26 2004, @01:10AM)
    "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? (Score:2)

    by Tester (591) <tester AT tester DOT ca> on Friday May 19 2006, @04:34PM (#15369021)
    (http://www.tester.ca/)
    I suppose Debian has only accepted it into non-free?
  • Sun is a Business... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZSpade (812879) on Friday May 19 2006, @04:34PM (#15369022)
    (http://www.spadez.net/ws)
    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.
  • Honesty? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2006, @04:34PM (#15369027)
    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? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2006, @04:35PM (#15369040)
    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? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bjarvis354 (319402) on Friday May 19 2006, @07:46PM (#15370014)
      (http://code0range.net/)
      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"?
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:I'm sorry, but how? by kosmosik (Score:3) Friday May 19 2006, @08:56PM
    • Re:I'm sorry, but how? by Jussi K. Kojootti (Score:2) Saturday May 20 2006, @04:12AM
  • I seriously doubt (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rbanffy (584143) on Friday May 19 2006, @04:36PM (#15369046)
    (http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/)
    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?
  • Debian? (Score:3, Informative)

    by TopSpin (753) * on Friday May 19 2006, @04:38PM (#15369059)
    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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by KiloByte (825081) on Friday May 19 2006, @05:28PM (#15369384)
      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.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Debian? by John Hasler (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @05:30PM
    • Re:Debian? by wuzzeb (Score:1) Friday May 19 2006, @05:35PM
  • 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.
  • 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. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Friday May 19 2006, @04:44PM (#15369100)
    (Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @10:49PM)
    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.
    • Re:Money. by Wesley Felter (Score:1) Friday May 19 2006, @04:48PM
    • Re:Money. by Eric Smith (Score:3) Friday May 19 2006, @04:49PM
    • Re:Money. by killjoe (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @08:51PM
      • Re:Money. by DAldredge (Score:1) Saturday May 20 2006, @02:06AM
        • Re:Money. by killjoe (Score:3) Saturday May 20 2006, @03:42AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • License terms? (Score:2)

    by babbling (952366) on Friday May 19 2006, @04:44PM (#15369106)
    (http://www.getogg.org/)
    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?
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • CC No-No? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    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].
    • Re:CC No-No? by rmm4pi8 (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @05:00PM
    • Re:CC No-No? by AuMatar (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @05:03PM
      • Re:CC No-No? by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @05:18PM
        • Re:CC No-No? by trollable (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @05:45PM
          • Re:CC No-No? by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Friday May 19 2006, @05:57PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • I've been sensing... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Null Nihils (965047) on Friday May 19 2006, @04:48PM (#15369135)
    (Last Journal: Monday March 26 2007, @11:53PM)
    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? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by suitepotato (863945) on Friday May 19 2006, @04:55PM (#15369194)
    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.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Sun still afraid (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bobs666 (146801) on Friday May 19 2006, @04:57PM (#15369207)
    (Last Journal: Monday July 30, @08:40AM)
    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 (Score:4, Funny)

    by icepick72 (834363) on Friday May 19 2006, @04:58PM (#15369213)
    "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! (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by lewp (95638) on Friday May 19 2006, @05:07PM (#15369260)
    (Last Journal: Monday February 27 2006, @09:54PM)
    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... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Eric Damron (553630) on Friday May 19 2006, @05:11PM (#15369284)
    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. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2006, @05:15PM (#15369314)
    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! (Score:5, Informative)

    by wizardmax (555747) on Friday May 19 2006, @05:16PM (#15369315)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday August 18 2003, @03:26PM)
    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! by dmindless (Score:1) Friday May 19 2006, @06:55PM
    • Re:Leave Java Alone! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shutdown -p now (807394) <int19h@gmail.com> on Friday May 19 2006, @07:46PM (#15370013)
      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.
      [ Parent ]