Slashdot Log In
Sun To Choose GPL For Open-Sourcing Java
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:10 PM
from the open-'er-up dept.
from the open-'er-up dept.
An anonymous reader writes, "Sun is about to announce its plans for open-sourcing Java SE and ME, according to CRN — and they're going to use the GPL, not their own CDDL or another less-restrictive license."
Related Stories
[+]
2007 Java Predictions 284 comments
jg21 writes "Java Developer's Journal has published the results of its end-of-year poll of various Internet technology players, from its own internal editors to industry high-ups like the founder of Apress, Gary Cornell, and including too the thoughts of professor Tony Wasserman of Carnegie Mellon West. Participants were asked to foretell what they saw happening in 2007. Among the predictions — Cornell: 'The open-sourcing of Java will have no effect whatsoever on Java's slow decline in favor of dynamic languages (Ruby, Python) and C#'; Wasserman: 'The use of the GPL 2 for open-sourcing Java will inhibit the completion and acceptance of the GPL 3 proposal'; and Rails creator David Heinemeier Hansson: 'The stigma of being a Web programmer still using Windows will increase.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Sun To Choose GPL For Open-Sourcing Java
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 407 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:w00t! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.dittobox.net/)
No, wait, it's Slashdot!
Re:w00t! (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 07 2006, @09:15PM)
Re:w00t! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://calum.org/)
Re:w00t! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:w00t! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.solatis.com/)
Yeah, I'd noticed that. Also, almost every article about MS is tagged fud, notfud, itsatrap and notatrap, most of the political articles are tagged fud and notfud. Nice to see I'm not the only one getting annoyed that people seem to be using tags as comments. Mind you, is it really surprising?
yes, no, maybe
Re:w00t! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/ | Last Journal: Wednesday June 13, @11:39AM)
You grossly misunderstand. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://youtube.com/watch?v=FCDJ0jhWKno | Last Journal: Tuesday November 14 2006, @01:31PM)
A static VM obtained from Sun will not require source distribution when included in your product, since Sun maintains that. So anyone using Java now won't notice the difference.
It's open source, and there's no way it can be used AS THE BASIS of a 3rd-party product that isn't open source without Sun's permission, which is how they want it.
Who loses? If you want sole modification/closed distribution rights, you can get a source license directly from Sun, just like you do right now.
Yesssssss........ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yesssssss........ (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 02, @10:22PM)
Re:Yesssssss........ (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft's VM was a lot better than Sun's at that time, and their Windows GUI library made AWT look like the utter pile of shit that it was. They also put a lot of effort into marketing Java as the future of Windows application development to developers, and had a language independent native interface and interoperability layer that was offered to Sun, but rejected in favour of JNI.
"Sun decided that pure Java was more important than success on the Windows desktop so I guess they should be happy that things turned out the way they wanted."
I think it was more of a case of Scott McNeally's pathological hatred of MS leading to yet another in a remarkable series of bone-headed maneuvers that ended up nearly bankrupting Sun. This particular bone of contention seemed to revolve around the fact that while the MS VM and libraries supported JNI, their use required a command-line switch, and Sun reckoned that the command-line switch should be used to enable Microsoft's options rather than theirs (for some reason, an old illustration of Swift's Lilliputians and their war over what end of a boiled egg was the correct one for breaking with a spoon kept coming to me whenever I read about that particular saga).
"These days MS isn't interested in Java and Windows developers are even less interested."
And because of Mono, the same can be said for growing numbers of Linux and OS X developers. By cutting off their own nose to spite their face, Sun not only closed the door on a big source of revenue (MS were their biggest, and therefore most lucrative licensee at that time), but also spurred the development of a competing system by a company with effectively unlimited funds that had already written their own Java compiler, VM, and libraries, and therefore had a very good idea of not only what Java had done right, but also what was wrong with it. This together with Sun's foot-dragging over open sourcing Java led in its turn to a clone of the competing system that check-mates Java's ability to run on a variety of platforms. Way to go Sun!
Re:Yesssssss........ (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://miyakohouou.dyndns.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 07 2004, @01:15AM)
Given Sun and Microsoft's past history I would imagine sun would test anything that came out of Redmond wanting to be called "Java" very carefully.
Re:Yesssssss........ (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.fylo.net/)
True... MS would have to call it something else... like... say... J++? Or maybe J#?
If the MS-Novell deal turns out to be the catastrophe that everyone thinks it is (based on MS' track record of how it treats its "partners"), then this is a really smart move for Sun. SuSe and Gnome get tainted, Mono becomes a dirty disease, what's left to fill in the void? Java: the reason why .NET and Mono exist in the first place.
Let someone clarify... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let someone clarify... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let someone clarify... (Score:5, Insightful)
It also affects all the regular users of ready-made distributions who only package and distribute GPL software.
Er... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @06:02PM)
I mean, I know some people have a mad on against the GPL, but it ain't what you'd call restrictive. The only thing it does is mandate that all derivitve works also have to be GPLed.
Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Out of the most popular Free licenses, GPL probably is the most restrictive - many others don't have the restriction you mention.
Not to say that I don't think the GPL is a good choice for this.
Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)
The freedom the GPL is taking away is for someone to take source code that is GPL'd and then:
1) Take that code, bundle it into a restrictive (often commerical) license and give nothing back to the community
2) Put it into a BSD style or public domain which is fine - until somebody does 1)
Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://etherplex.org/)
It lacks the assurance that your software will remain Free and open source to anyone who uses it. This is something you can do with GPL'd code that you cannot with BSD'd code; make a legal guarantee about the freedom of the software.
Which is more free?
1) that which ensures freedom or
2) that which grants so much freedom that it permits denial of freedom
You make the argument that the answer is obvious, but if you pause to think rather than simply mashing the "reply" button, you may find that it is actually a question worthy of some consideration. I'm not saying I know the answer, but the answer has far reaching ramifications many arenas (abortion, wars, government, software, etc.)
And in other news tonight: (Score:5, Funny)
I'll believe this when I see it.
Will this lead to better desktop Java? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.saynotocrack.com/ | Last Journal: Friday February 09 2007, @03:02AM)
On the other hand, is this Sun's way of wiping their hands clean of everything besides their only Java moneymaker (J2EE)? They must realize that desktop Java has seen its day, and this might be a way to save some development resources while they continue to restructure in light of recurring market share losses.
Re:Will this lead to better desktop Java? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not obvious at all (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a great move...even for the anti-GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
When you look at the other Java implementations, you have the Apache-licensed Harmony, and commercial implementations from IBM and BEA.
Java can only be helped by this because it removes one of the major objections Linux backers have against using Java.
This is great (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who have already started complaining about the license in this thread - why don't you spend a few years writing your own Java clone, and giving it away under BSD or whatever?
Interesting, if true (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.axiom-developer.org/)
Second remark - I think the GPL is a good choice for this. Consider what Sun might gain from open source Java under any license:
1) Excellent integration with Linux, *BSD, and any other platform out there they haven't integrated into fully yet (except maybe Windows). They would get all the work done for free, too - distributions would be chomping at the bit to work long and hard on making everything work Just So.
2) Much better realization of cross platform "write once, run everywhere" goals. Well integrated Java everywhere can only help this.
3) Possible improvements as people get a chance to fix anything that's been annoying them for the last several years.
All very logical reasons to open source, IMHO - Java is already freely downloadable. Sun owns the Java trademark, so they have no fear of forks which mean anything in terms of threatening Java mind share - Java has to be one of the most publicly recognizable programming language brand names in the world. Sun will always provide the "only" Java, whatever else out there might run Java programs.
Now, what does GPL do for them, that other licenses might not?
1) Credibility - rather than inventing Yet Another License, making things simple using already established (and I think functional for this purpose) licenses.
2) Prevents commercial forking. Whatever open source Java becomes, it is unlikely that someone would try and compete commercially against Sun when Sun has the commercial code base and original developers. Any work any commercial developer did in competition (that they want to distribute anyway) would have to be offered free to the world under GPL, and even if Sun can't use it directly the ideas alone would be enough to allow them to keep up and maybe get there first in some cases.
3) Allows maximal code sharing in the open world. GPL has its own momentum, as a sort of "logical end point" - free except for the ability to become non-free. That would seem to make a lot of sense to me for Java, particularly since I would expect (like OpenOffice) that most of the best code would come out of Sun and be copyright Sun. Sun can put out what it wants, and still license commercially if they so choose.
Downsides for Sun primarily seem to be the "radical" image associated with GPL in some circles (yes that's a disadvantage if you want to look like a reasonable, sane business to some PHBs) and the inability to combine developments based on GPL Java back into their commercial Java without discussing it with the author. But since this very restriction is also a reassurance to the community in some ways, it might not be all bad.
Anyway, I will watch developments with interest and look forward hopefully to the day when Java on Gentoo can be well integrated and smooth.
This is such awesome news for all of us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun was making some missteps... for instance how badly EJB sucked up to 2.1.
Now we have POJO's implementing enterprise beans in 3.0. We have strong standardized support for security and cryptography (ala JCA/JCE, JSSE, JAAS). JDBC is a snap. We have excellent documentation and books available from J2ME to J2EE....
Between Britney Spears being available again and the Repubs losing House and Senate... I'd say it was a good day.
New License (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.enderandrew.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday July 03, @11:44PM)
They have no qualms of people seeing the code, submitting code, compiling on their own, etc? They want to port to all systems, etc.
There seems to be a huge void here. We need a license that covers this scenario and specifically prevents unauthorized forks. Change the code on your own machine. Submit upstream if you wish, but you can't distribute unofficial builds, or fork the code.
If such a license existed, it might be considerably more likely to see more open-source codecs, open sourced Flash players, plugins, video drivers, etc.
Sun has said forever that the code is basically out there already, and they had no qualm making it open-sourced over than the fork issue, and the only reason for this lengthy delay was coming up with an appropriate license. So why just settle on the GPL?
I'm confused.
Forking is an essential right (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://felter.org/wesley/)
This will be super cool. (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://nutsncents.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday August 08 2003, @07:47PM)
Better; part of your browser that _cannot_ be integrated into non-GPL browsers. They still have to run it as a plugin.
This has mind-boggling implications in terms of patents that apply only to browser plugins (ahem---Eolas).
I've always wished for a Firefox with Java + Flash integrated (does that even make sense?). I don't feel that plugins give as good of an experience as native browser controls.
Re:Too bad it's too late (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.pembo13.com/)
Huge impact on free operating systems (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3675.html)
If Sun releases both the Java VM, and (more importantly) the Java class libraries under the GPL, it will be huge, because important packages will now be able to include Java functionality out of the box
Example: Distros can ship Firefox (a.k.a. Iceweasel/Firesomething/whatever) with a Java plugin. On every architecture. Running OpenBSD. And it'll be reliable, because weird OS-specific bugs will actually get fixed.
Another example: Debian et al. can start shipping OpenOffice with Java support.
If Sun plays its cards right, it will have eliminated the so-called Java trap [gnu.org], which can only serve to render Java more ubiquitous.
That said, I'll believe it when it happens.
GPL2 or 3? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are they trying to limit forks? (Score:3, Interesting)
Amazing you guys say this now. Yesterday someone would have argued java is clean and fast and nothing could beat it. Now that, of course, it's happening, you're all for cleaning it up and admitting it's downsides.
Sort of reminds me of Apple's switch to intel. For years powerpc was the best processor for the mac. The g5 was a super computer. The day they switched? Oh the yohan is going to be so powerful! I can't wait for the dual core!
Re:GPL'ing Java will kill it (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://log.fivesevenfive.org/)
For those of you not familiar with it, Java goes hunting for all code at runtime based on the fully qualified (package + class) class name, and resolves methods and fields based on name as well... the code that gets executed at runtime can be completely different than the code compiled against, so long as the method signatures match. That's the crappy, its 11pm and I'm watching the daily show version.
So if I distribute my non-GPL binaries, and GPL'd libraries seperately, am I in violation? What if I use Java WebStart and the user's client downloads the GPL'd libraries from their distribution site? And if I just distribute my binaries and make the user hunt out the GPL'd libraries on their own?
I'm honestly curious.
--
Phil