IBM Offers to Help Sun Open Up Java 475
dave writes "ESR has opened the issue of
pressuring Sun to open source Java, and today IBM throws in their own
commitment toward this end. IBM has published an open letter to
Sun, proposing that the two companies collaborate on an independent project
to open source Java, saying that IBM is ready to provide technical resources
and code for the open source Java implementation while Sun provides the open
source community with Sun materials, including Java specifications, tests and
code."
Doubtful... (Score:3, Interesting)
'course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
A Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Now a days, they are for open standards, helping out other firms, investing in open source, etc etc etc.
What changed, specifically? Mind you, I'm all for the change (it's very good in my opinion) and they seem to be doing the right things, but is this a response to Microsoft and its ways, or did the change come internally?
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just playing Devil's Advocate here: IBM sounds touchy-feely about open source but how would they react if Sun were to offer to help IBM open up AIX?
Second thing... bad example, since IBM has already released stuff from AIX as OSS (see the whole SCO vs. IBM debacle)... and they could never open-source the whole thing, because of licensing issues for the base SysV stuff it's built on.
Unless IBM was to buy SCO... in which case, who knows, AIX might just get open-sourced.
Open letter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why doesn't IBM open source it's own VM? (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm sure Sun has patented parts of Java that would make it difficult for IBM to go their own way.
-ave
Re:Why doesn't IBM open source it's own VM? (Score:5, Interesting)
*IBM is ready to provide technical resources and code*
What about gjc? (Score:5, Interesting)
Licensing issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linux + Java = Profit!! (Score:3, Interesting)
MySQL License (Score:5, Interesting)
No freakin' way . . . (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:4, Interesting)
OSS Support (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps IBM has realized that an investment into OSS is more cost efficient than paying to develop their own closed source software.
Opening Java systematically would make it more appealing to a wider user base - No longer would it's major uses have to be confined to web, Sun, or CS classes at major universities.
Sun made a nice start on Java, but like most closed, standardized software, a better alternative could probably be written.
Kudos to IBM for their support. Hopefully Sun will accept their offer and a better, OSS version of Java will be released.
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt shareholders feel this way... unless their goal is to be bought out.
Re:Doubtful... (Score:5, Interesting)
then perhaps you should take a look at experimentalstuff.com [experimentalstuff.com] - sun's site for experimental code. lots of it is opensource including an entire operating system (chorus os [experimentalstuff.com]).
looks like a committment to opensource to me.
Re:A Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:5, Interesting)
They say are trying to build a community around Java and it seems to me that given those two points Sun really should release Java to the open source community.
I think this really would give Java a HUGE boost over
Besides, JBoss and Linux distros make money on packaging and supporting Free but hugely complex systems.
Re:A Question (Score:5, Interesting)
If the open development and open business models take hold, I think we may see a paradigm shift in industry (though possibly only in software) where no one makes a product, but each (company, community, individual) may add something or change something, and if it takes off well and the resources are there, they will be compensated.
People who say that this model won't work forget (or maybe never learned!) that people are often noticed for their abilities despite the fact that they may not be employed by a company in that field, or may not be particularly well-versed in it, but because they can still understand a particular problem and solve it well.
This is my hope, at least.
Re:Why doesn't IBM open source it's own VM? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sun is too stubborn or ignorant to see this. Or simply they fear they can not compete.
If I held Sun shares I would be voting that CEO out.
Re:Nice. (Score:1, Interesting)
Apart from certifying app servers as J2EE compatible, I don't see sun making any money off Java anyway.
Opening it up would help - support JBoss as the reference implementation and de-facto J2EE app server, and sell commercial support for JBoss!
If JBoss had Sun supporting it, it's usage and takeup would soar.
Open Source dangers... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem they're afraid of is Microsoft embracing & extending Java. The ability that Sun had to sue Microsoft and force them to cease their modifications would no longer exist.
Now imagine Bill Gates at home in his Medina mansion.. (only 10 minutes away from here actually... sad...). Everywhere he tries to push
I don't know. And for the time being, I'm fine not knowing...
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:2, Interesting)
OpenNTF [openntf.org]
Re:ESR: not so bad after all? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sun & IBM have a good alliance (Score:5, Interesting)
But does IBM honestly think that open-source
is the best path to creating successful software?
If so, how about an open-source WebSphere & DB2?
It would be great if IBM could use its muscle
to move Java forward in the areas that need it,
like advocating for open-source J2EE servers,
and ideally more sensible ways to deploy J2EE.
Anyone here playing with Java 1.5?
Sun made things more sensible like
autoboxing and generics and loops--
how about making J2EE more sensible?
IMHO, Sun & IBM both need this to happen
before MS gets momentum on the big servers.
Cheers, Joel
I disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
Good projects never fork without reason, and if they do, fork is neglected by users.
Furthermore, noone stops Sun to maintain the definition of Java standard. MS was not sued to stop delivering java VM, but to stop calling it "Java" (IMHO). I can copy all code from Red Hat, change it whatever I like, but I cannot call it "Red Hat" anymore, which is normal. It is so simple under GPL!
IBM's opening bid? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sun & IBM have a good alliance (Score:4, Interesting)
This is just IBM saying that they see Java as a fundamental building block, and that if it isn't free it will have serious issues in the future, inluding losing developer mindshare.
Re:Open Source dangers... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what the GPL is for. Who cares if MS modifies it if their modifications have to be open source?
*Cough* and Mozilla (Score:3, Interesting)
The only other company mentioned are Red Hat, no mention of IBM there. Seriously, Mozilla and StarOffice are the two most imortant applications (alongside KDE) which allow me to run a Linux desktop in a Windows dominated corporate, and Sun have to be thanked for their investment in both.
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that would keep Sun pretty firmly in the driver's seat.
It's odd...
Sun perhaps knows this best from OpenOffice/StarOffice. They've made a huge commitment to Open Source.
But... when dealing with companies like Microsoft, Microsoft could embrace the GPL'd Java. Sun would have have a hard time preventing Microsoft from repeating what they did with J++, they could market .net as an environment which is 100% forward compatible and simultaneously extends the capabilities of Java, a nice marketing perk to steal Sun's customers and lock them in to 0% backward compatability...
MS would have to backport and back-patch the new GPL'd releases of Sun's GPL'd Java to their extended environment, and maybe Sun could try to intentionally break MS GPL'd Java extensions, but I think that's easier said than done.
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, cloning Swing and many of the other massive libraries in recent JDK versions is a mammoth undertaking and life would be a great deal easier for everyone if Sun would open up the reference implementation. But don't discount the work of the people who are already doing it - they're further along than you think!
(BTW, the reason those URLs point to kaffe.org is just because my own domain for them expired; kaffe.org graciously agreed to host the files, but the results are independently generated and not biased in favor or against any of kaffe's "competitors". Having said that, Kaffe is another project that's made leaps and bounds recently. There are, in fact, multiple completely Free/Open Source implementations of Java now that can run many high-profile Java apps, including Eclipse and Tomcat)
Re:Linux + Java = Profit!! (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe so but it would mean that Sun will go bancrupt. Sun has put most of it's effort into Java, the cost to develop it has been huge. Sun needs to get revenue from java real-soon-now. I think you also realize that open sourcing java would mean Sun will not be able to get their investment costs back.
"Although they are worried about open source meaning zero revenue, this isn't necessarily the case. [informationweek.com] "
Not necessarily but in the absolutely majority of cases it means zero revenue. There are extremely few developers of open source that has managed to get any significant revenue from it in any form. And no, Redhat is not a developer, it's a distributor of other people and companies products who are unpaid.
Re:Blackdown (Score:4, Interesting)
In any case, the real problem is that there's no Free Software Java platform, so Java is not and will not be distributed with Free Software distributions like Debian or Fedora Core.
Re:A Question (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
The VM may be clean room and open-sourcable, but by itself it's useless; Kaffe and Classpath and gcj and all the other existing Free alternatives are at a much greater level of development than IBM's because they do address the class library issue. IBM would probably have the sense to go with the technically better solution - either graft Classpath or Kaffe's libraries onto their VM and release that, or simply back one of the existing open VMs, depending on how tightly their implementation is bound to Sun's libraries.
However, if IBM was going to do this they could have done it years ago - I've pretty much given up hope that they have any intention of backing any of the Free Java projects.
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were at Sun, one of my concerns would be which of their development projects to open, and when. "Java" isn't just Java 2 Standard Edition - the Enterprise Edition and Mobile/Wireless Edition have lives of their own; then there's (still) Jini and all their XML stuff. Sun is sinking cash into lots of different efforts, trying to establish Java in market niches (like mobile phones) and building in tool support, documentation, etc. Throwing the doors open and letting the world at their code base may not be the smartest thing at the moment (esp. if there's licensed IP in there somewhere that they need to go negotiate to open, or remove).
I'd like to see them phase in open-source. Give 'em six months or so for the 3 major "platforms", including all the java.* and javax.* packages, then another six months for the com.sun.* packages - with an expectation that other players would start working on them immediately. After that, every new thing they do should be opened no later than beta... and the JCP should allow participants to collaborate on implementations at the source-code level, so JCP members could work in semi-privacy until the code got fully opened at their beta release.
But that's just an idea....
OY, this is insane. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sun's JVM is an implementation of that JLS
IBM's JVM is an implementation of that same JLS
BlackDown is an implementation of that same JLS
With most of the implementations not offically open source this seems to mean that java itself isn't 'open'.
I think IBM wants to take Sun's VM and expand on it and be in on the ground floor so they can reap any potential earnings from the join venture. They are being as civil as a business can be by saying they want to simply help and not take it over or back-stab them, since IBM has the size and capacity to make just about anything it needs.
But pack to the open-source debacle Java can be open sourced if someone is ambitious enough. I would imagine if they didn't spend as much time badgering Sun, they might have one by now. I think Sun's apprehension of opening Java up stems from the Microsoft mess where one JVM had significantly different behavior than the Sun JVM and caused Java appear to be a defunct technology that should be avoided in leiu of ActiveX
This is my view, right or wrong I at least have one.
Java is not PHP (Score:5, Interesting)
You mention Apache, MySql, Perl, PHP, and so on, but none of these projects are at risk of a malicious fork the way Java is.
We all know what Microsoft did with Java the first time around -- added in a bunch of MS-only extensions and more subtle incompatibilities, then shipped their version with every version of Windows, and put out an IDE that encouraged the use of their proprietary extensions. They also put a lot of work into making their JVM the fastest one out there, which further encouraged its use (and misuse).
Why in the world wouldn't they do that again, given this golden opportunity? Dual licensing, GPL restrictions, etc., don't help from what I can see.
Okay, under the GPL they would have to distribute it for free -- no problem, that's what they were doing before. Ah, and they'd have to release the source -- again, no problem, since it's all Windows-only extensions that cannot be supported in a cross-platform Java (do you think Sun really wants to be playing catch-up with MS, anyway?).
Java on the server would still be safer than on the client. MS could add in extensions to encourange interaction with
It wouldn't matter if they couldn't call it "Java". It would simply be the same old jview.exe that ran when you hit a JNLP link, applet, or application JAR.
Am I missing something here? I'm not neccessarily against open-sourcing Java (because I'd feel slightly safer, and I think the GUI libs would get a boost), but I think this needs to be addressed first.
lots of noise lately (Score:2, Interesting)
We do not need java and we probably can't trust MS. So why not start our own virtual platform? We could have control of it from the beginning.
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not "any monkey" can write a VM. They're non-trivial (just ask the Kaffe folks), and IBM has several irons in the fire. As well as licensing Sun's VM (and improving it vastly for their customers) they also have their own VM under development, entirely free of Sun IP.
On the issue of class libraries, you're also nearly right. Swing would be hard work, and pointless. There's a reason that eclipse [eclipse.org] doesn't use Swing... IBM isn't interested in it - it sucks.
IBM also has their own set of class libraries under development - entirely free of Sun IP.
So, in my opinion, this is just a huge red herring. IBM has enough projects under heavy development to release a completely open-source VM and set of class libraries within 18 months if they want to.
Personally, I think it's going to happen, and this is them tapping on Sun's window going "if you don't do it, we will, and we'll do it without using your IP".
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I highly doubt it. Just like the Business Software Alliance commercials tell us, it would only take one disgruntled employee to wreck your entire day. If Microsoft "borrowed" GPLed code and tried to hide it not only would they open themselves up to a serious lawsuit from the copyright holders (with serious monetary penalties), but they could theoretically end up having to share any source code that came in contact with the GPLed code.
In short, the risks are simply too great.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not so much "forking" itself, but the goal of "Write Once, Run Anywhere".
What Microsoft did was add some language keywords that allowed one to call COM objects from Java -- which was damn useful if you only were targetting Windows. However, these keywords generated non-standard bytecodes, and non-standard bytecodes crash other JVMs.
So, none of your examples really address Sun's goals -- PHP and Perl come close, but they basically accept portability problems. It would be basically impossible to prevent divergance of the actual bytecode instructions even with a strong licence like GPL.
An Open Source class library would make much more sense than an Open Source JVM. (not GPL, and perhaps with some naming requirements for modified libs). It's not like there's any big secrets in there.
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to me that IBM would be stupid to do this when they could achieve the desired result much faster by cooperating with the existing Classpath or Kaffe projects.
My impression from IBM's recent behavior is that they're not stupid. Ergo I wouldn't expect them to be wasting time on an independent class library implementation.
So, again, do you have a source for that claim?
GPL + monopoly = monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's assume Java is open-sourced. MS will produce a change, available to everyone, which allows Java to call COM/DCOM/.NET objects. They they're change their compiler to use the feature in preference to any other ones.
Anything compiled with the default compiler on the monopoly (and very popular) platform will work only on the monopoly platform. The source code can be recompiled with a GPL'd compiler, but it still will only work on the monopoly platform
This is how MS gets around the spirit of the GPL while honoring the letter.
--
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:1, Interesting)
But seriously, why would they want to use Sun's Java code, GPL'd or not? To compete against their own software?
I think the moderators are a bit hasty to reward anything that accuses MS of anything underhanded.
Why not look at IBM's product range? (Score:1, Interesting)
I mean, there is a reason Sun wanted to buy a Smalltalk implementation (not IBM's) before creating Java. </advocady>
I guess it's easy for IBM to tell Sun: "why don't you open-source your language" while keeping a secret, well secret and not doing anything themselves.
Pretty interesting if it goes ahead. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why an open letter? (Score:2, Interesting)
Look at this comment [sun.com] back a few months ago, I think IBM has better a argument anyways.
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
At worst it's a zero-sum game (assuming effectively infinite cash reserves) for MS. They have to GPL their extensions, and hopefully whoever stewards the reference implementation will pick them up, but maybe not. After all, JavaSteward Inc. doesn't have 50 gigabucks in the bank.
If MS does a good job, people won't bother downloading the Sun VM for running client code anymore, the competing VMs will suffer compatibility bit rot, the PHBs will get scared about platform fragmentation, and the market will start whispering "no one ever got fired for buying Brand X" in their ears.
Re:Open letter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Listen to Ganesh Prashad (Score:2, Interesting)
1. He pits Open Source against Microsoft. Open Source software is judged on its own merits and doesn't exist to compete with Microsoft. Prasad consistently overstates the threat of .NET.
2. Prasad complains about $$$. Open Source is about freedom, not cheaping out on software. The sad thing is, he disses JBoss, which is a perfectly good Open Source application server, that has plenty of clout in its market niche. The certification issue is separate, and should be taken up elsewhere. Just because BEA and IBM can make some money off J2EE doesn't mean it's a failure. I'm using Orion and it works perfectly well. I'm moving to JBoss, which is even better. Those that pay more for their J2EE think they're getting their money's worth, and it's irrelevant to the Open Source argument.
3. He doesn't let Open Source sell itself. Prasad cites the myriad of Open Source Java applications, tools, implementations, IDEs, frameworks, and services as competition to Sun. Quite the opposite. These are complementary efforts. What Sun needs to see is that an Open Source process would allow Sun to take more advantage of these efforts to avoid duplication (log4j, mx4j) and provide shareholder value by easing up the drain on its own resources.
4. Prasad makes stuff up. Sun is obviously in a leadership position with Java. J2SE 1.5 proves it, and proves that Sun is staying on top of its competition. The whole notion that Sun is unaware of Ant is ridiculous and completely undermines his Open Source argument. Part of the beauty of Open Source is that complementary technology like Ant and Java can evolve in parallel with a minimum of formal interaction. Sun does not need to recognize Ant, since it's already universally recognized. His dimissal of Eclipse, a fabulous Open Source project backed by leaders in the Java community, is completely out of line. Eclipse fully supports Ant, is heavily integrated with Ant's build process, and can even generate Ant scripts. Prasad completely betrays his ignorace. As for XDoclet, J2SE 1.5 incorporates XDoclet-like features, and it's the beauty of Java's extensible and exposed documentation architecture that allowed it to exist in the first place.
It's unfortunate that his article was so widely circulated and so poorly thought out. There are plenty of good arguments for Sun to Open Source Java, and none of them were explored. Prasad needs to spend less time sniffing .NET glue.
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Death Of Java (Score:3, Interesting)
But IBM did just that with SWT. Now they have a better development platform than NetBeans and Sun can't figure out how to keep people from writting Ecplipse plug-ins with SWT. IBM has already demonstrated that they are willing and able to take Java in incompatible directions. Sun can't help but be wary with someone like IBM, who with SWT has already shown that it doesn't play Sun's game and is more than willing to ignore the Java "standards" without consulting anyone.
-- Jack
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, good point. The owner of the misused GPL copyrights would either be due a large monetary fine as compensation for misusing the GPLed copyrights, plus the derivative work would be undistributable until it was cleaned up, or the company would have to release their source code.
Just because up until this point the companies in quesiton have always opted to release source code does not mean that this will always be the case. The fact of the matter is that the GPL is a pretty big hammer. As the folks scooped up by the RIAA are finding out copyright enforcement is an area of the law with ridiculously high penalties. Most companies, when faced with the prospect of paying ridiculously large penalties and being forced to stop distribution of their software until they can remove the GPLed code wisely choose to release source themselves. They don't have to, but they have got much alternative.
Of course, this only applies in those cases where there is a substantial amount of GPLed code that has been borrowed. Otherwise damage control is fairly easy.
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How nice of IBM.. (Score:2, Interesting)
They have big chunks of J2SE done (obviously not Swing).