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."

eh

[Josh_Borke]

so, java and solaris will be open source, and hardware will be free. so basically we'll be paying for our work?

Benefits?

[Anonymous Coward]

How will this benefit Java?

Wow, this is huge news!

[autopr0n]

Let me be the first to say: I hope to god Eric Raymond doesn't try to take credit for this. For those of you who don't know, ESR wrote an open letter asking for sun to Open-Source java. He wasn't the first, by a long shot. And IBM also asked for the same thing. Given ESR's tendency to take credit for just about everything though, I'm sure he'll claim that this was his doing...

That said, I hope java doesn't end up fragmented. One of the really nice things about java is that despite a few problems, it's very portable. I've never personally had a problem moving my code from one machine to another. I hope we don't end up with lots of different "distributions" of java. While Linus has managed to keep the Linux kernel mostly whole, That has a lot to do with his political skills. Lots of OSS projects end up fragmented.

I also hope this isn't an instance of sun trying to save some of their technology from being destroyed as their ship goes down. Sun has been struggling, and I hope they pull through and continue with their leadership in the development of java.

Re:Not much of an announcement

[lucaschan.com]

When I heard this earlier today I thought the same thing, this is a non-announcement.

It may be a non-announcement. But it's certainly more promising than what they've stated in the past.

Re:Benefits?

[MrWim]

Bug fixing, performance enhancements, porting to more platforms, inclusion in free software only (assuming thay release it under a free software liscence rather than just an open source one) distributions [read: debian] to name just a few of the advantages.

Also, if it's free more people are likley to use it for developing free software

Re:Yeah, by IBM.

[SphericalCrusher]

Well, nonetheless, if Sun somehow dies, the world still has Solaris and Java at their fingertips. I can't believe they are actually going through with this. I thought that little Microsoft deal would have stopped it completely, but I guess Sun still has a few tricks of thier sleeves. w00t!

Java for amiga anyone?

[tcc]

Does that mean that finally, 10 years later, my amiga 1200 will finally have support for not only frames but java too? :)

I remember the browsing frustrations I had in my last years on that platform, at one point we were in advance for just about everything possible, then lost to 3d gaming, then 16bits audio, then lost all the cool hacks like running a multi-line BBS routed through both telnet and dialup at the same time without even being a programmer, to being a slow about to die dog exept for playing speedball... Oh well.. better late than never I guess..

Re:Bah! Tell me when it actually happens!

[Bricklets]

This is useless. Considering how often Sun changes its mind, there's no reason to believe anything they say. It'll only be newsworthy when Sun actually does it!

Considering just a month/few months ago Sun was saying no to open sourcing Java, this IS news. It represents a public shift in their coporate strategy. Call it what you will, this is newsworthy.

At some point!

[ElDuderino44137]

*Laugh*

I'm sorry.

I can't believe that an organization would put so much time, effort, and money into a product ... only to give it away to the open source community.

Open source.

Maybe when we all give up on Java and move to the CLR.

Cheers,
-- The Dude

Re:Is Microsoft Behind This?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much do you want to bet that Java will be open sourced under a BSD-style license, and not the GPL.

And this would be bad because...? BSD makes source code truly free, unlike the GPL. Freedom means allowing people to use knowledge without restriction, even if it's contrary to your personal vision of the world. It means protecting the rights of even those who don't believe said rights should exist.

Yes, please do it!

[nicodietrich]

We'd thank you, Sun!

Java will be in good hands!

Too little, too late.

[digitaltraveller]

Let's assume this isn't horseshit fed to the masses to keep using Java technology.

(eg. like dressing up in a Penguin suit while handing SCO a paper bag full of money under the table.)

From a business point of view, what's the point?

Mono is nearing release 1.0 and is a very attractive platform for developers. Releasing Java open source 3 years ago would have screwed Microsoft hard, but now I'm not so sure.

I still think open sourcing is the best strategic move for Sun, but I think they have no clue on how to exploit it. They will probably do something silly like release it under the IBM CPL since that's what their competitors are doing.

The best move for them is obviously to GPL it, and use a Trolltech style licensing model. GNU Classpath [gnu.org] will naturally get in the way. (again, should have did it 3 years ago).

However, the COO, Johnathan Schwartz recently teased in the media that they might release Looking Glass, Sun's new 3D desktop widget toolkit as open source. I've seen it, it looks great.

If they GPL'd that as well, Sun might have a chance at getting a serious revenue stream happening.

I doubt this will happen though. Sun will keep withering out of fear and inertia. It's the nature of the beast.

Unless of course its all owned by SCO

[goombah99]

IIRC, SUN was one of those companies buying SCO licences. Perhaps SUN's turn to open source prompted this. I can see two reasons. One would be if SUN actually had plausibe SCO unix code in their Solaris (or java). or the other would be if they mereley worried that when they open sourced it some would turn up and they wanted to indemnify themsleves.

Re:Fork

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I was just trying to respond to the question of why anybody would be against the open-sourcing of Java.

I don't think its a bad thing. There are things that the open-source community would do if it were open today. One of the best things about the Apple implementation of Java is that it uses OpenGL to draw Swing. Java 1.5 is just getting this. Well if Java were open, this kind of thing would probably be done already. Anyway, this is the kind of project I think the open source community can contribute to Java.

Re:Fork

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't need to use the GPL'd code. Microsoft already has their own implementation. But the trick is, Sun sued and won saying that if what Microsoft did didn't pass the compatibility test, they couldn;t call it Java.

If Sun open-sources Java, and allows people to make changes (incompatible changes) and still call it Java, then Microsoft can do the same thing. I think this is what the guy was talking about when he said they haven;t figured out the licensing yet.

any success?

[ryen]

are there any "success stories" of proprietary software going open source? i guess the definition of "success story" is subject to opinion.
Success for the releaser? (Sun)
Success for the community?

Re:Not much of an announcement

[peawee03]

They do have real concerns about losing control. Usually, without too much hassle, Java can live up to its write once, (test and then) run everywhere. Will this be so if there are forked projects?

Hasn't Sun made Java an open standard, as in you can run a Java app on any VM that lives up to the standard? Thus, you can implement the standard however the devil you please.

Please correct me if I'm just talking from the ass.

JMF Comes to Mind

[ink]

Poor JMF; it's all but abandonded by Sun -- and the reference implementation pretty much only works on Windows for anything other than simple audio. IBM seems to be doing more development on JMF than Sun does anymore. The JMF forums are full of questions with very few answers. This would be an excellent library to open source.

Re:Yeah, by IBM.

[CallMeCal]

I'm no coder, but I believe that the GPL is the only thing that can save the (virtual) world. Saving the world, virtual or not, is bloody inconvenient.

By a strange set of circumstances I found myself, a little over a year ago, sitting in a small room with RMS and a standard-issue complement of corporate Win32 support slaves. A FOSS missionary had brought us all together.

I've been a GNU/Linux user since 1997. At home I am now exclusively a G/L user. Am gunning for that at work.

Yet, when RMS told the gathered geeks and semi-interested bystanders (and I paraphrase) I think one should be willing to use inferior free software instead of superior closed software (/paraphrase) I thought Bull fucking shit.

That was before SCO filed suit. That was before I paid enough attention to what's going down in the patent realm. That was before Redhat sold out freedom for whatever it is they think they're getting in exchange for freedom. (The money ain't worth it, guys. You know in your souls -- if you haven't sold them -- that it ain't.)

I was running Redhat then. I'm running Debian now. It's inferior in many respects. It's maddening in many respects. It's free. I'm free.

People who have more chops than I compile their own custom kernels and their own sets of GNU & other FOSS. That's not just freeom. That's power. That's one future that any user is free to choose.

I'm so grateful to those who code in the name of freedom. I am writing this to you on a computer that's as free as I know how to make it, because of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds and thousands of like-minded coders.

If, in order to stay free, I have to sign an effing affidavit every time I log on, I will do it.

And I know the coders who believe in what they have taught me to believe in will take the time to certify their code. It's a *very* small price for freedom.

Re:Wow, this is huge news!

[dmaxwell]

I'm treating this "announcement" strictly as a hypothetical musing. I truly don't know what to make of Sun's motives or intentions. You have to remember these are the people who would have you know that Linux is a good desktop but a lousy server. Sun can say and do so many contridictory things in the course of one day that I think Scott McNealy should tie it all up with dinner at Milliways.

Assuming this is for real, Java needn't become fragmented at all. For one thing, Sun could choose one of the source under glass licenses and call it Open Source. That situation wouldn't be much different than what we have now save the PR bonus/controversy for Sun. It's a pity OSS didn't get their trademark; it would have cut down on that sort of thing.

On the other hand, they could pick the LGPL or even the pure GPL and enforce the Java trademark ruthlessly. No one is going to bundle Joe-Bob's Virtual Machine. Besides, there is a vast body of code that any would be machine has to run. It takes extremely obnoxious behaivor on the part of the maintainers for such forks to even get started. Oh well, the possibility is interesting but doesn't really excite me.

One thing they could do right now is fix their retarded redistribution terms. They need all the mindshare they can get. It is a PITA to have to install Java as a third-party addon in a Linux distro. They just need to fix whatever it is that stops Suse and Redhat from bundling with it their distros. It wouldn't even hurt much if it had to live on some sort of contrib CD.

Re:Yeah, by IBM.

[Bull999999]

Apache isn't GPLed but that didn't stop most distros from making the Apache the standard web server for Linux.

Hell Yes!

[twocents]

It's not so much about whether or not Java is Open Source. It's about the fact that when Java IS Open Source, then all of those other groups/companies/developers that make OSS products related to Java will push this technology even harder.

It's already working. Come on, C# is borrowed from Java. If you have a hard-on about about M$, then just remember they took the idea and applied it to their own technology. The biggest computer software company in the world has already created products from Java.

And don't forget, .NET only runs on Windows! Choice my ass, it only runs on Windows. If I repeat that again, am I a troll?

Oops...my original point was that open sourced Java will help to push an industry into more development, very similar to the great amount of work that has come from working with Apache.

Don't fear the fork

[ChiralSoftware]

Everyone is so afraid of forks. I think a fork would be great. How about KDE-Java, which is a Java distro for writing KDE apps? Why shouldn't I be able to write Qt apps in a safe, easy-to-use language like Java? Sure, it's a fork and that QtJava app won't work on any other Java, but that exists already. I'm told that a bunch of OSX apps are actually written in Java and the system has good support for that. What would be bad is tampering with the java.* packages, but there is no need to. Just make a Jaav distro with a trolltech.* tree built in and ship that with KDE... that would be great. Another option would be a Java fork that implements Swing using Qt for its rendering, instead of using X calls directly. That would also be a fork, because it would introduce a dependency on the Qt libraries into Java, but Java apps wouldn't change.

These are just some examples of what Open Source Java could bring, and why forking is good.

----------
Create a WAP [chiralsoftware.net] server

poison licensed

[Anonymous Coward]

>even if the license is "poisoned" to prevent it from being mixed with GPLed code

You are getting it wrong, the GPL license poisons other licenses.

Sun would be damn smart to license it under an open source license that prevents it being somehow sucked into a lawsuit by being linked into/with GPL code.

GPL will end up being a legal hammer that RMS/FSF uses to punish those that don't support major forward development for GPL friendly enviroments.

Knowing what we know from the SCO lawsuit bs, I really don't see any reason to license with any license (e.g., GPL) that could eventually be used in a lawsuit to prevent the code from being freely used.

Re:Bah! Tell me when it actually happens!

[Bull999999]

Not to mention their stance on Linux. I'm still not sure if they are for or against it, although I personally think that Sun's anti-Linux.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Call it attention-whoring then.

trolling for mono...

[Kunta Kinte]

From a business point of view, what's the point?

Mono is nearing release 1.0 and is a very attractive platform for developers. Releasing Java open source 3 years ago would have screwed Microsoft hard, but now I'm not so sure.

First you ask what's the point, from a business-point-of-view no less. Then you bring up the legal blackhole that is mono?

The point is not basing your development on a technology owned by a ruthless competitor that has promised to squash you.

The point is having a development environment that is equally supported on multiple platforms by the core designers themselves.

The point is not to have the threat of patent suits looming over you for using an unauthorized and patented language/API/Runtime/Whatever-else-they-patented stack.

If they GPL'd that as well, Sun might have a chance at getting a serious revenue stream happening.

Oh yeah, the money just rolls in when companies GPL software, doesn't it.

Ahhh... Only on Slashdot :)

Two corrections

[SuperKendall]

3-In fact, there is actually LESS chance of fragmentation when Java lies in the hands of the public, first because it means that no one will start up a competing "openjava", a venture that would almost certainly lead to incompatibilities, and second because, as the example of the death of xfree86 shows, too much central and absolute control over software by a small group will inevitably anger developers and users alike, leading them to search for an alternative.

Say, isn't "OpenJava" called .Net? Same difference to me, extremely similar platforms with huge amount of duplicated code (Ant and NAnt, JUnit and NUnit, etc.). What you said about the issues with forks is true until someone big enough does it, and we are seeing the result in front of our very eyes.

As for control by the public - Java is already controlled by the public at large through the JCP [jcp.org]. I do think opening the source could get some people more fired up about some things though, as the JCP can be rather slow.

Re:Good thing for FreeBSD

[kwerle]

And in fact it is a nightmare if you want to deploy it on multiple FBSD boxes - and heaven forbid you want to sell a product that depends on it and make clients install it.

Worst. Solution. Ever.

(granted, it is a solution, but it sure blows)

Re:Wow, this is huge news!

[dekeji]

first because it means that no one will start up a competing "openjava", a venture that would almost certainly lead to incompatibilities,

Even though there are attempts at doing that, Sun's licenses prohibit it. If you have looked at Sun's source code or their Java specifications, any work you do on an "OpenJava" is a derivative work. So, the status quo is quite cozy for Sun: they really do not have to worry seriously about open competition because Sun has the legal means to squash such competition should it become a serious competitor.

second because, as the example of the death of xfree86 shows, too much central and absolute control over software by a small group will inevitably anger developers and users alike, leading them to search for an alternative.

You mean like the control Sun is exercising over Java? You see, that's what Sun really is afraid of when they talk about "forking": they are afraid that the developers and users they angered will pick another entity to take control of Java. You wouldn't end up with two incompatible versions of Java, you'd end up with only one, the one that doesn't come from Sun anymore.

Re:No reason to open-source Sun's Java implementat

[zerblat]

Java is not just a compiler. There already are free Java compilers and JVMs. The important part is the class library. Reimplementing all the classes and keeping compatible is a huge task (which GNU Classpath is working on).

My point is, a free, forkable implementation of Java will happen -- with or without support from Sun. If free software people could use Sun's classes, the risk of having incompatible versions of Java (because of subtle differences in implementations or because some classes haven't been implemented yet) would be lower than it is now.

Besides, having a complete and free Java environment perhaps could keep some free software developers away from C#/.Net

Re:Not much of an announcement

[FooBarWidget]

"Often, the open source community has a very narrow and selfish view when it comes to certain things. Like, why make software easy to install, like OS X? No need- any Linux user (present or future) is smart enough to compile his own software, resolve dependencies, etc."

Sigh... don't give me stupid stereotypes like that. I've been working for more than 2 years on the autopackage project [autopackage.org], which is exactly trying to make Linux software installation easier. I've put many man hours into the project and you come up with a dumb stereotype!? I'm very insulted! I'm sure all the people who put a lot of efford into GNOME and KDE would feel the same way too.

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

"A person has to ask- could the OSS community ever have produced a gem like OS X? Could it have produced Java? OSS has the skillset, some of the sharpest folks on the planet."

Yeah. How about Mono? Everybody who has tried .NET is bragging about how great it is. How about GCJ? It can produce native executables from Java source code. Perl and Python are also very nice and powerful languages.

"But who is keeping them coordinated? Who is the CEO with a single, cohesive vision?"

How about the project maintainer? The BSDs has a clear visiion of what it's supposed to be. Inkscape's maintainer has a clear vision of the future. There are good and bad maintainers, but there are also good and bad CEOs. Don't act like corporate control is some kind of bliss.

Re:What's the problem, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's the point... isn't it? Imagine that someone will fix some bug that bothers many people but this fix will break something other in the system. This fixed version will be used and right away the code that works elsewhere will not work on these systems. And that is exactly problem with forking. Java implementations have to pass extensive testing to conform standards agreed in JCP. But you will hardly be able to force developers to do anything if Java was, say, GPLd. Sure, this testing can be forced on the "official tree", but still there can be some smartie that will decide that his implementation of things is much better and the advantages he brings outweights the incompatibilities. I believe this is the problem SUN fears most - distributing your own version...

Re:java or the JVM?

[kiyut]

As the parent post said, the Java Term must be defined more clearly.

Java Language: It is how you define the language itself eg: language syntax, primitive type, etc
Java class library: It is the default library that come with the package eg: everything that start with java.* package
Java VM: the runtime environment that execute the Java Class e: Sun Java VM, IBM Java VM, Kaffe, etc
Other: not clearly defined & buzzword like Java Platform, EJB etc

The Java Language itself is already Open in term of JCP, everyone can join and participate
There are also many third party Java Library either OSS or Closed that complement the default Class Library like Apache Jakarta commons, various Java Widget.
I think since Java 1.4 sun allows endorsed package/lib which mean third party library can replace the default lib ship with the Java VM

Therefore, IMHO, the most needed OSS java is the Java VM. Because currently there are no Java VM implentation which is as complete as Sun Java VM. And Sun Java VM maybe the most featurefull but is it the fastest out there?
By OSS Java VM it will allow:
- freely distribution, eg many Linux vendor doesn't included Java VM in their community release
- Improvement in Java VM performance, Java 1.5Beta is quite fast, but faster doesn't hurt anyone :)

Re:Yeah, by IBM.

[Anonymous Coward]

There already is a GPL'd Java implementation.

Compiler: GNU gcj
Libraries: GNU classpath
Virtual machine: SableVM

You do know

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun just did this to see the relevent feedback on osdn/slashdot/other related forums ;D

QT license

[MysteriousMystery]

A QT style license that requires purchasing tools and rights from Sun for commercial use, while allowing free software (under an acceptable license) to be developed for free would be the best idea in my opinion. I'm sure there will be great debate at Sun over how profitable this will be, but in the long run this is definitely the way to go.

Re:Reason to use Java?

[nagora]

Python is at least as portable for all practical needs,

I'm not really a fan of either language but I would say that I've yet to see a Windows machine with Python installed on it while it's been years since I saw one without Java. For web-based applications I would imagine this is a big deal.

TWW

Re:Not much of an announcement

[TheRaven64]

Apple, however, took Free BSD and put a super nice wrapper on it.

No, Apple took OpenStep (or maybe OPENSTEP, I can never remember which capitalisation was the standard and which the OS) which was already a very nice 4.3BSD/Mach 3.0 derived OS with a consistent UI. They then replaced some of the 4.3BSD parts with FreeBSD 4.x (pre 10.3) and FreeBSD 5.x (post-10.3), updated the UI to look more shiny and added a MacOS compatibility layer. Going from BSD to OS X was something that took 20 years of continuous development from NeXT and Apple, not something that happened overnight.

Don't get me wrong on OSS here. It has produced cool, big things like the Linux Kernel, Gnome, KDE, XFree86, etc., etc. All wonderful pieces of a puzzle that just doesn't seem to fit together quite as well as they need to when it comes to building a complete OS platform.

Try running GNUStep and WindowMaker on X11 on *BSD. You get something a lot like OpenStep 4.2, with a few of the OS X improvements added. It's not OS X, but it's a very nice workstation environment and close to source compatible with OS X (you can compile GNUStep apps on OS X. The other way around works if the code is pure POSIX/Cocoa and doesn't use any of the newest features of Cocoa).

What's the fuss

[Second_Derivative]

The Java spec and compatibility will be diluted? Surely trademark law was designed to prevent this very problem.

I dunno if Java is a trademark or not, but either with a trademark or a license clause in the distribution, Sun could require that any derivative product that does not conform to the Java spec may not use the word "Java" in its name or in any promotional literature (kinda like a saner version of the BSD advertising clause).

I can't imagine Sun actually depends on the technical specification as a significant revenue source. People despise Microsoft these days more than ever and don't much care to be locked into their .NET system which has just one lord who can force you further along the upgrade treadmill at a whim. Sun putting their money where their mouth is and truly making an open Java implementation available could be just what it needs.

(Come to think of it the spec already is pretty much 'open' thanks to the JCP. So you have to pay Sun for a copy of the spec. You have to pay ISO or ANSI or whoever to the C and C++ specs too ... right?)

Re:Not much of an announcement

[bwy]

1996 called. They wanted to know why you're compiling from scratch as opposed to using a distribution and its package manager. (*cough* Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Connectiva, Slackware, hell even Gentoo *cough*)

Works okay until you find some app that isn't quite mainstream and still needs to be compiled. Even the smallest, oldest Win32 or Mac shareware app installs easily. Also, installing software on Linux doesn't seem to normally offer to put things in the Gnome or KDE menus, create desktop aliases, run at startup, etc.

Open License too?

[Kainaw]

Open Source is nice, but not necessary for most Java users. How many Java programmers are complaining, "Man, I could write the program I want to write if I could just change the source code for Java!" However, an Open License would be great. The primary drawback to writing a program in Java is that the runtime engine has to compile the program on the fly. There are programs to compile the program for specific operating systems, but they are required to inculde the entire Java runtime library set due to licensing restrictions. So, if you don't use something like port IO or Swing graphics in your program, it has to still be included in the executable. An open license would allow a Java programmer to compile an executable that is small and fast and generally competitive with a similar C/C++ program. That solves the complaint that I normally hear from Java programmers: "I could write that in Java, but who would use it since they have to figure out how to install the runtime engine, get the classpaths configured, and then open a command prompt or teach their system to figure out a .class file should be run by Java?"

Re:You're not thinking.

[Decaff]

I think really that it is the frameworks that will keep Java alive.

Good point, but there are several key features that will keep java not just alive but thriving.

1. Absolutely key: Java is multi-platform. Even Microsoft now seems to be admitting that they will have to share the server market. Java runs on all servers - even Microsoft. Using toolkits like SWT, Java can have the same access to the Windows API as any other Windows app. As far as I can see, the only reason to use .Net is political, not technical: you want to ensure your apps run only on Microsoft platforms. Java does what .Net does, but does the same everywhere.

2. Supported by lots of vendors. Even vendors who are in competition: Sun, IBM and HP, support Java and implement the standard.