Slashdot Log In
Sun To Choose GPL For Open-Sourcing Java
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:10 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This discussion has been archived.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.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yesssssss........ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yesssssss........ (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yesssssss........ (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Yesssssss........ (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Let someone clarify... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let someone clarify... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
Er... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Parent
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)
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)
Parent
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)
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.
Re:w00t! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, wait, it's Slashdot!
Parent
Re:w00t! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:w00t! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:w00t! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
You grossly misunderstand. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
GPL2 or 3? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Forking is an essential right (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent