Sun will Open Java's Source

bckrispi writes "An announcement from Sun spokesman Raghavan Srinivas indicates that, contrary to what we've heard in the past, Java will be Open-sourced. "We haven't worked out how to open-source Java, but at some point it will happen," Srinivas said."

Fork

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this is that it could cause people to make incompatible forks of Java. What I mean to say is that Microsoft could make a .Net version of Java that is not compatible with everything else.

Not possible, you say. Who would use it.

Well, whats the most vulnerable part of Java -- its the UI. Swing apps are pretty good already, but not quite comparible to a native app. Well, thats the first thing that will change. And people will like it because it feels like a native app.

What for, you say. Just use SWT.

Well maybe, but with .Net you get all the native widgets without a 3rd library in there. Plus, you can do something like System.Window.Form.Whatever. Shit I don't do .Net, you know what I'm talking about.

Re:eh

[newhoggy]

ESR has something to say [catb.org] about free hardware.

Re:Fork

[shaitand]

Not if it's properly gpl'd, then Microsoft won't touch it with a 10ft pole. Some obscure unix tools for windows package is one thing, something like a jvm for .net is WAY too public to use under the gpl after their past statements.

As for non-commercial forks... this will prevent them. Anyone can write a jvm NOW, there are already open source jvm's. Sun's isn't even the best jvm, but what sun has going for it is that it's the official jvm, that's true no matter what license it's under. If you want a jvm, it's sun you get it from.

It IS hard to open source java....

[bigman921]

Remember that java isn't just the jvm or the class library source. It also includes JSSE, java's encryption framework which probably can't be open sourced (comercial restrictions, export laws, legal liabilities of possible changes to shipped trusted certificates...). I am sure there are other pieces that are sensitive as well. You wouldn't be able to use SSL out of the box with a JRE that didn't have a JSSE implementation.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Only as stale as pointing out stale jokes to get a +1, Insightful.

What's the problem, exactly?

[mi]

FreeBSD ports of JDK 1.3 [freshports.org] and 1.4 [freshports.org] both build from source. Yes, you have to download the source manually from Sun, but it is available [sun.com], and has been for years...

Is it really that important to be able to distribute the built binaries for people? Without paying Sun for it, that is?

encryption is compatible with open source

[Great_Jehovah]

The regulations clearly state that if you can point to the source you don't need permission from the government.

Re:opening questions

[Tarantolato]

The fear of a fork is what keeps the community split.

Sun has this spooky, almost pathological, fear of forking. I guess you can attribute it to fallout from the proprietary Unix wars of the 80s and 90s. Thing is, those were a direct consequence of proprietary licensing. Everyone took the "historical Unix" code, put it in their own systems, and then chugged along incompatibly, with the new code hidden. The difference with GPL'd code is that if you use it, you have to publish it. So your rivals can copy or emulate incompatible features easily.

GPL projects can fork, but the forks can dovetail back into one another. Proprietary projects that fork stay forked.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes. If you noticed, he mentioned that in the second sentence.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you hear? Funny doesn't get you karma.

Re:Yeah, by IBM.

[cammoblammo]

Umm, how are Linus and RMS like minded? Whilst they both support Freedom of software, they're completely different in their philosophies, ethics and favourite programming languages. Saying they're like minded is like saying that Microsoft and the Salvation Army are like minded because they both happen to produce goods and sell them.

Re:Don't fear the fork

[damiam]

QT/KDE Java already exists [kde.org].

Re:Yeah, by IBM.

[cammoblammo]

Okay, I know, I'm getting off topic. But here's a link [linux-mag.com] telling us how RMS views other FOSS advocates anyway.

Re:This is news?

[bruthasj]

Because Sun is a fairly large company with a fairly widely used product and they're actually *considering* the possibility of open-sourcing that product, whereas before everyone thought it was some lone ranger rant by ESR. Besides, Sun is the only entity on the planet with the rights to make this decision.

On the other hand, no one knows who you are, no one cares if you make money, everyone has a playstation, and most people know how to play it.

Does that help put things in perspective?

Re:Yeah, by IBM.

[cozziewozzie]

Actually, the Java Desktop is a Linux distro running GNOME. That's the only GPL part there is (and it has no connection to Java other than coming with a Java VM).

Re:Good thing for FreeBSD

[Baki]

Why? Just create the package on one of your FBSD boxes (including downloading source manually etc), then pkg_install the resulting package on all of your FBSD boxes.

No, not the GPL

[Aapje]

The shitstorms are because Die-Hard Linux geeks/distros want to have everything on their computer/CDs under the GPL.

I don't believe you. Do those distros ship without Perl and Apache, which are both not GPL licensed?

IF they release it under the GPL, I see this making the open-source world a lot friendlier to Java.

Open-source != Free. A significant group of people prefers a BSD-like license over the GPL. A GPL-compatible BSD-like license will be usable by both GPL and non-GPL programmers. Most programming language implementations do not use the GPL, and that is probably for a good reason:

Python - BSD-like license
Perl - Artistic
Gcc - GPL (but glibc is LGPL!)
Zope - BSD-like
Php - BSD-like
Scheme - BSD-like
Ada - Artistic
Eiffel - BSD-like
TCL/TK - BSD-like

Furthermore, the GPL may be a serious problem for Sun. Not all Java code is necessarily copyrighted by them. They might have licensed some code from others. With a BSD-like license, they can just keep those parts with their original license. A GPLed Java would require relicensing, which Sun cannot do. Another problem may be patents. Sun owns quite a few Java-related patents and the GPL requires them to give everyone a free license to those patents. That would allow MS to use those patents in their software and even to build another evil Java clone, but then, Sun wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Another patent problem may be that third party patents cannot be used in GPLed software (even though Sun can license it). So Sun might not be able to include some functionality in a GPLed Java.

Re:Yeah, by IBM.

[AnyoneEB]

Which is great until you want to have a GUI. Although it's being worked on, GNU Classpath doesn't really support Swing. Of course, it sounds like mostly Java is used for non-graphical programs anyway, but not always. Open-sourcing Java would mean that it could be included by distros and used for desktop apps.

Re:What's the problem, exactly?

[samhalliday]

further than all that... even the binary license is strict; if you distribute the SUN java in your OS distro... then you are not allowed to distribute ANY other replacement, i.e. gcj. thats pretty much why debian don't even have it in non-free and you have to add unofficial mirrors in your download lists

"open sourcing" java doesn't really excite me too much... but, along the same lines as what you are saying, making it "free" (as in freedom) and GPL compatible would be a tremendous step, and i might actually start to learn some java! open sourcing somethign does not necessarily imply th freedoms that we are used to in the GNU and BSD worlds, despite all of those applications falling undert the open source umbrella (i consider open source tp be the supersets of all licenses which allow you to see the source code... but do not necessarily grant you the freedom to use it).

Re:Not much of an announcement

[bwy]

I swear, if Linux ever fails on the desktop, it'll be because people like you keep insulting developers with dumb stereotypes.

No, it will fail because for years people have struggled with software installations, OS configurations, hardware configurations, etc. Yeah, wonderful that I have a choice of Gnome or KDE. You know what would be more swell? If I plug in a new monitor, and my X Server won't start, and I DIDN'T have to ssh into the box and manually hack the XFree86 config file before the box will boot at 5 again.

Try explaining this type of thing to Joe User when he buys a new monitor at CompUSA and brings it home. I've been a software developer for many years and I've found the best thing that has benefited my career has been to drop the arrogance I had the first few years and start listening to the users, however "dumb" they might seem at first. After all, they're the ones using the stuff, and without them we just have a lot of OSS technology that is only useful to the development community. Oh, and users are only "dumb" at using PCs. Chances are they're using their PCs do do other types of work that you and I wouldn't have a clue about.

Re:Wow, this is huge news!

[autopr0n]

You lucky bastard. You must never have moved your code developed with a modern Sun JDK to a machine using Microsoft's VM.

Now why the hell would I want to do that!? Complaning about MS's "So non-standard we got sued over it" VM not being compatable isn't much of an argument. And you're right. I have mostly only moved code between JVMs that were modern for their time. But most of the machines I've ever had to deal with had 'em, so I don't see that as a very big deal.

The beauty of java is that I can take compiled binaries (which I may or may not have the source too) and run 'em on 99% of the machines out there (any windows, apple, or Linux box basicaly)

Re:No, not the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Scheme - BSD-like

How can you generalize over an entire standardized language what its licenses are? (I think this also applies to Ada and Eiffel, but I don't actually use them). That's akin to saying the C or C++ languages are under a certain license.

Chez Scheme (one of the most popular commercial implementations) is proprietary. SISC is dual licensed by MPL/GPL. MIT Scheme is GPL alone. PLT Scheme is LGPL. Scheme 48, Stalin, and Larceny use BSD-like. And this list doesn't even include Bigloo, Chicken, Guache, Gambit, Guile, SCM, Pika, SCSH, and about a dozen others.

A GPLed Java would require relicensing, which Sun cannot do.

No it doesn't -- they can add exceptions for code that can't be GPL'd to the license.

GCJ - SWT Gui

[orasio]

Create native, cross-platform GUI applications [ibm.com]

Create native, cross-platform GUI applications, revisited [ibm.com]

Not compile once, run everywhere, maybe write once, compile everywhere, but that is Java, GPLd with a GUI.

Re:McNealy says THEY WILL NOT open the source

[qqqqarl]

Friday 4th June 2004

Sun's Scott McNealy squashes idea of Java becoming open source
[PC Pro] 13:07

Sun's CEO Scott McNealy has squashed hopes that its Java programming language could be made open source, and cast a shadow over Sun COO Jonathan Schwartz's statement yesterday that the Solaris operating system was to go the same way.

At a news conference during the public sector technology showcase FOSE 2004, McNealy said he couldn't understand how open sourcing Java would solve anything.

In February, Eric Raymond, President of the Open Source Initiative, published an open letter to Sun in which he called on Sun to make its Java platform Open Source, describing the company's Open Source strategy as 'spotty' and 'confused'. IBM also published an open letter to Sun with a similar plea.

At a UK conference in March, McNealy joked of such letters: 'They do get looked at. Sometimes with a chuckle.' His comments on demands to open source Java then echoed those he gave at FOSE. 'I don't know what problem that would solve apart from IBM's childhood envy,' he said.

Java is an object-oriented programming language designed to allow the same version of a program to run on multiple platforms without modification by using a Java runtime environment that sits between the Java program and the operating system. Java is the jewel in Sun's crown, as far as McNealy is concerned, because of its pervasiveness. 'There's not one other platform where you can write to it no matter whether it's a cell-phone or the Mars rover,' he said. On rivalries between Java and Microsoft's .Net he said: 'Mankind won, Microsoft lost.'

Sun maintains that open standards are more important and that it has to retain control over the direction of Java to prevent the creation of different implementations that may be incompatible - something Sun accuses Red Hat of having done with its version of the Linux-based operating system.

This doesn't bode well for the chances of open-sourcing Sun's Solaris operating system. While speaking at the SunNetwork confe

ADVERTISEMENT

rence in Shanghai, China, Schwartz commented: 'I don't want to say when that will happen... But make no mistake - we will open source Solaris.'

However, he said this would be done in the same way that Sun holds stewardship over the direction of Java, which will frustrate many in the open source community.

However, Sun is not entirely against an open source version of Java. It has indicated in the past that it might be possible to relinquish its stewardship position to a neutral governing body that would assure open-source implementations wouldn't 'fork'.

And Sun isn't the only company with the skills to create an open source version of Java. Sun's Chief Technology Evangelist, Simon Phipps, told us in a recent interview: 'Why has no-one else offered to create an Open Source version of Java? Maybe because it's on the 'too hard' list. Sun would support an Open Source version of Java, but it needs a lot of money and time to do so. You can't just flick a switch. Right now Sun has higher priorities in the form of Java 1.5.'

Despite the rhetoric, it doesn't look as if open source implementations of either Java or Solaris will be around any time soon.