Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Java Programming

RMS on Java and GPL 338

Posted by Hemos from the the-prophet-speaks dept.
EmilEifrem writes "A JavaLobby member asked RMS [?] about his opinion on Java and GPL. Interesting, as always." I think my favorite quote is the intro: "It is strange to argue for ensuring compatibility in Java by keeping implementations non-free. Even if you accept the choice of values (compatibility above freedom) this idea is based on, which I don't, it simply won't do the job."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RMS on Java and GPL More

RMS on Java and GPL

Comments Filter:

  • Sig11 hits with Comment +1 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Please don't use your +1 bonus to post redundant crap like this.

    Heh. +1 bonus. Like Slashdot is D&D or something. We've even got trolls!

  • Javalobby members lack of objectivity (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I used to be a member of the Javalobby.org, but I found that was too one-sided in favor of Sun Microsystems. To my mind, they are not a very objective group and are far too subserviant to Sun. They WERE IN FAVOR of Sun dropping out of the EMCA and ISO talks, for example - yet paradoxically were against the 3% J2EE Sun licensing fees! So, Java Lobbiers - which is it? Will you continue to blindly support Sun and put up with all the licensing fees associated with that decision or will you all collectively sit on your asses hoping SOMEONE ELSE will provide you with free Java environment and tools instead of assisting GPL'd projects such as Classpath and Kaffe? Considering what Java consultants get paid these days I find your collective apathy to be appauling.
  • Moderators really have no sense of humor anymore...

    --

  • Ah, that'll be the definition of revenue center where revenue is actually expenditure. Sun hasn't made money out of Java.

    As for the acceptance of external chnages, go look at the progress on the JCP. This, unlike the open source path involves writing the spec then writing reference implementations, not the other way around.

    Oh hang on, we're on Slashdot aren't we... Larry Wall Good, Sun Evil, Fire Hurt Mongo.

  • Nope, it just breaks all the existing implementations putting you in the position of constantly upgrading JVMs with features which may also get engineered out. This is something you can't easily do with embedded systems so it would damage Java there. It would make the ubiquity tenuous, and damage the corporate use and goodness knows how screwed up browsers would become.

    The GPL only protects skilled technology users; it does not protect consumer users.
  • Then you've written no Java and you are pronouncing from ignorance.

    I've got plenty of Java code which runs across a wide range of VMs on numerous platforms just by moving the byte code around.

    People like you who spread, well FUD is generous, lets call em like they are, lies as just as bad as the lowest of the marketing slime at Redmond.
  • Given you have the remarkably large sample of ONE Java program, have you considered that it could be a not well written program? Or are you seriously suggesting people don't write crap code in C?

  • So

    [a] You use free web sites as a backup medium and destroy all your own copies.
    [b] You arrange no mirrors, or any mirrors only mirror the binary....
    [c] No backups? So you're silly.
    [d] It should cost you $5000 as a fine for not taking a backup and using free web sites as an exclusive distribution.

    Under the GPL, the user with a copy of your source is under *no* compunction to distribute the source code *unless* they are distributing the binary themselves. Go threaten to sue.... using who's money? How much lawyer can you get fot $5000?

    If you are going to guard your own interests, you don't do silly things like destroy your own backups and use free web sites as distribution mediums.

    The GPL cannot help you in the situation you describe.
  • This is _not_ about money.

    And yes, it _does_ matter, and it _does_ hurt me.

    But I guess you are the blind one.

    OG.
  • As is so often the case, RMS is right on the money. In many ways, what's most surprising is the way Sun have successfully stayed some way ahead of the free implementations in their commercial offering, especially in the class libraries: given what Java has to offer, you'd normally think we'd snap up the chance to create a free implementation. Perhaps dirty tricks like the SCSL have successfully divided us and our efforts.

    I look forward very much to the major release of Classpath he mentioned!
    --
  • Sheesh, how, then, is it that we have 200 000 lines of Java code at our company that runs just fine on Solaris, Windows and Linux? Not a single line of code needs to be changed between these environments?
    I stand by my statement. Enough so that I'll even repeat it again: WORA is a complete myth.

    And I don't doubt what you are saying is true, either. Your corporation has a carefully controlled environment and if Java isn't set up on a computer, you have people to fix that. But the last two letters of WORA stand for Run Anywhere. I didn't say that the computers at your company can't all run the stuff. But most computers don't have a JVM all nicely set up so that they can run Java.

    In a controlled corporate environment, Java may be able to approach its ideal. But controlled corporate environments are not "anywhere"! And I'm not just being anal, though maybe I'm not thinking in a corporate manner.

    And anyway, with carefully enough written ANSI C you could make something nearly WORA. If you are willing to put the effort into it, many things can be portable. Maybe Java is easier than other solutions this way, maybe not, I wouldn't know. But Java is not such a clear winner as it would have itself be.

    Squeak [squeak.org] is trully WORA, so it can be done. But Java for one reason or doesn't choose to make that choice.

  • What struck me about the discussion at JavaLobby is how people were defending things that didn't exist.

    Sun has not shown itself to be a good supporter of Java even in the realms they champion. If they believe in write-one-run-anywhere, they have not made that a success. Running Java through the browser is a highly substandard and unrobust solution, but at this point few people have the libraries, VM, or whatever else they need to run Java programs any other way. WORA is a complete myth, and Sun's efforts are pathetic in this area, particularly distribution.

    As far as standardization, we already know what Sun thinks about that. But even then Sun has the ability to create a defacto standard if they released complete specifications. They haven't. They also haven't released reference code, since code under the SCSL is clearly not usable in this fashion. Even a poorly documented and implemented Free J*va would provide a better basis for standardization.

    As far as forking, Java already has forking because Sun licenses Java code to other companies for other purposes. Besides the fact that Java can't be run at all in many environments, the various implementations of Java run it differently. Sure, Sun can reel these implementations back in, but it hasn't. Anyone could reel these implementations back in if Java was Free.

  • There is one program on my system which uses Java. It was written by professionally employed programmers, crashes constantly, and the GUI has tons of bugs. The GUI is your #1 use of Java and it really isn't functional anyway. My opinion: use Java when an employer asks for it and when you code for money. Use C when you're trying to get something done.
  • In my experience, free software is often not first to market.
    Maybe so, but your examples doesn't support it.
    It took Emacs decades to mature.
    Huh? What makes the current Emacs versions "mature" and the previous versions not? Emacs has been _the_ most complete text editor as far back anyone remembers. When a new major version come out, it is often somewhat unstable for the first few versions. But that is cyclic phenomen, it makes little sense to call Emacs 20.5 for more "mature" than Emacs 18.55.
    And GNU C++ didn't become a reasonably complete C++ compiler years after good commercial implementations were already out there.
    The various C++ compilers, including g++, have leapfrogged each other in terms of usability. There is no clear pattern, except that Stroustrups own CFRONT of course was first.
    Mature C/C++-based GUI toolkits took a few years to come out after mature commercial C/C++ GUI toolkits.
    Wrong again. InterViews was one of the first, and it was free. I wonder what "mature" C++ GUI toolkit you are thinking of.
    Same for free, mature, powerful UNIX-like kernels.
    Well, Unix was proprietary from day one. The first reimplementation was BSD, and it ended up free.
  • Well, I don't see how commenting on how the headline Quake on Java first makes me think of a computer game and a computer language instead of a place and a natural event is mocking a disaster, but... Hal Duston
  • Yeah, but you only got three different kinds of moderation out of a total of 12 points. I on the other hand already have four different kinds of moderation out of a total of 4 points.

    Neener-neener-neener
    :)

    Hal Duston

  • Heh,

    And I wasn't even trolling,... I was remarking on the fact that with all of my exposure to computers the first link my mind made was to a computer game and a computer language instead of a place and an event...go figure...

    Hal Duston

  • So I was reading CNN yesterday, and came accross this link. Quake on Java kills at least four [cnn.com]. Hmm, thinks me that was fast, the source was only released this week. But, noooo, their talking about an actual place with an actual event. Funny how channeled our mind becomes after dealing with computers for so long and so exclusively

    Hal Duston

  • Under the GPL, if someone makes a change and distributes it, they must distribute the source code too. Embrace and extend doesn't work any more, it becomes very expensive for no gain.

    The software just benefits from the changes.

  • The article is about keeping Java "pure and compatible" and defeating "embrace and extend".

    The GPL can perform this function, the BSD license can't.

    On the other hand, the GPL license is no good for implementing new universally accepted APIs or features because of it's restrictions.

    Look, I use both the GPL and the BSD license, but for different things. The GPL for relatively standalone stuff and the BSD for highly integratable stuff.

    This shouldn't be GPL vs BSDL argument anyway though that's my fault I guess for pushing the button.

  • If the forked code is poorer quality lets say, it crashes more often then the maintainer will need to increase the investment to keep it going. If it does have a significant advantage then the features it has can be re-implemented in an acceptable manner.

    However I don't see the sense in deliberately forking code to provide incompatability, especially when you know that all the original maintainer has to do to foil your plan is to say yes I'll incorporate the changes. A lot of money and effort down the drain.

  • A lot of people seem to be missing the implications of the requirement to release the source code of any changes.

    There have been a couple of articles recently which describe well how the GPL's requirement that source code must also be distributed vastly reduces or removes the forking that everyone is so afraid of. (don't remember the links)

    If someone takes a GPL'd product and forks it, they then have to maintain the fork all by themselves, and they have to produce the source for their changes.

    • If the changes are good then they can be folded back into the main product and the fork becomes superfluous.
    • If the changes are bad then the fork will wither and die anyway.
    • If the changes are fantastic then everyone will rush to the new fantastic product and the original becomes superfluous.

    Note, the BSD license doesn't give this protection. The ability to keep the source closed means it can be worthwhile forking the code and maintaining it yourself. The BSD license is useful in other ways.

  • Then how do you explain the fact that projects like GCC, GDB, and the Linux kernel have not forked?

    gcc did fork, remember egcs? but it is a perfect example for stallman's argument. they eventually merged back together.



    "The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."

  • Do you understand the implications of free software? Licencing something under the GPL implies unlimited technical changes. Hell, I could grab the source to a piece of free software, completely obfuscate and break it, and re-release it as something else.

    Of course, no one will dare use it because it holds no merit against the 'better' original package.

    If you ask me, the the SCSL is no better than the original QPL, which RMS also denounced. So why are java-heads willing to accept the SCSL? If anything, the SCSL has proven to be slimier than the QPL, because Sun has demonstrated their will with this whole Blackdown fiasco.

    The licence may be the focus of this discussion, but the ill-sentiment I have for Sun is not entirely over the bad taste that the SCSL leaves in my mouth. The worst part is what Sun has demonstrated they _will_ do given the opportunity (blackdown) with little to no 'community' consultation.

    Sun COMMUNITY source licence.

    My arse.

  • Slashdot has IBM's permission to use the IBM logo. Indeed, as a result of working on this issue just over a year ago, I became IBM's "representative" to slashdot -- my favorite job responsibility.

    dave
  • The Java "compiler" part has been implemented (I helped write it), and is available under a license approved by the Open Source Initiative. The source can be found at: http://ibm.com/developerworks/opensource.

    dave

  • I remember reading the interview with Bill Joy in Linux Magazine a couple months ago, which included discussion of his views on the SCSL vs. GPL licenses. It's been a while since I read it, but I'll summarize as well as I can remember. He stressed the importance of compatibility -- that open protocols and formats are more important than open source code. It's a good point: the most important factor for improving the computing environment for everybody, as well as for preventing monopolistic lock-in effects, is interoperability. As long as the communications protocols, file formats, etc., used by an application are open standards, anyone can make a similar application that uses the same standards, and the applications will be able to work together (share documents, etc.). The actual source code of the original implementation is not necessary. Especially for something like a language implementation, it is essential for all versions to be compatible.

    He went further, claiming that the best way to ensure this is for it to be required by the license, and for there to be an authority in charge of making sure that all implementations live up to this requirement. (Sun, of course, volunteers to perform this function.) He considers this an advantage of the SCSL over the GPL, since with the GPL there is nothing to prevent people from making divergent, incompatible implementations, which would lead to a big mess, in which interoperability would suffer.

    The counter-argument, of course, is that since the GPL requires modifications to be free, any sufficiently-appealing enhancements in one implementation would be incorporated back into the other versions, keeping them compatible, and enhancements that are not sufficiently appealing would not be a problem anyway, since they would simply be ignored. It was hard to tell whether he failed to get this, or he understood it but did not agree. There were a few comments that seemed to miss the point a bit, but generally it seemed to be the other way. He seemed to believe that the freedom for people to re-integrate each other's changes would not be sufficient, and that there would end up being versions with at least small, subtle incompatibilities, and this would be unacceptable, since even small inconsistencies would be sufficient to turn "write once, run anywhere" into "write once, test/debug/modify everywhere". I don't really know: it does seem to be a valid concern, but then again, you could counter that it's sort of like that already, and that GPL projects do seem to hang together remarkably well in general.

    On the other hand, I like RMS's point that "you cannot close them off by denying yourself freedom, any more than you can hide by covering your eyes." That is, even with Sun's licensing policy as it is, nothing stops Microsoft (for example) from making their own version completely from scratch, breaking compatibility by adding their proprietary extensions, and using their weight to push it against Sun's (and other Sun-approved) versions. All Sun could do is stop them from using the trademark. Other than that, the requirement of doing it from scratch would make such an effort more difficult, but not prevent it.

    David Gould
  • I doubt RMS wants to destroy Java compatibility. He understands standards, he's been using them for quite some time.

    His point, I think, is that companies _will_ market systems which are incompatible, or contain extensions. It's going to happen, because there are companies who can afford to do so, and for whom there would be a benefit. The SCSL is not going to prevent this.

    What opening up the Java source would do would be to enable users to make core java compatible with the inevitable incompatibilies. This wouldn't destroy the presence of standards, or even Sun's control over the Java name using conformance tests. But it would help the users work with proprietary extensions _and_ enable useful work to be done.

    Look at TeX. The code is open. But to be called TeX, it needs to pass the trip test. As a result of this, we've had substantial third-party (commercial and non-commercial) development done: PDF generation, incremental display, built-in PS interpreters. Would these things have happenned if TeX were as tightly controlled as Java? And have users been hurt? Hardly.
  • .. there was both commercial gain to be made from the adding of lock-in "features" and the opportunity to keep changes secret. If they had been GPLed then any nifty features of a forked version would have just been back-ported into the main source-tree.

    By changing GPL software it's impossible to get a monopoly lock on a market. It may be possible to screw up the standard, or drag it in odd directions, but there's little to be gained there - especially since a re-standardized version can easily be made and distributed.

  • I'm a member too, and have always seen the group as supporting a middle ground.

    They don't approve of paying to use J2EE, as they don't see a lot of value in it for them.

    Their (various!) opinions on the ECMA issue were different: they saw the rules being changed at the same time as MS was lobbying strongly for the power to change Java, and came out against MS. Which is entirely consistant with their unhappyness with the modified MS Java, the one MS got sued over.

    That's not the same thing as agreeing with Sun: the Java Lobby was one of the groups which spoke harshly to Sun for the failure to credit Blackdown.

    --dave [Warning: personally, I'm somewhat biased towards Sun. I have this S-bus connector sticking out of my neck, you see...]

  • Long ago, Slashdot used the official Java logo for stories relating to the technology. Then Sun, in their infinate wisdom, decided this was trademark infringement, and asked Rob to remove it, which he did.

    Funny, I don't see IBM, Red Hat, or Corel complaining when news articles about them contain their logos, do you?

  • I did not use my Bastard Tongue +1.... check the stats..... I did, however, roll a natural 20 and lop your head off.

  • Hmmm (Score:3)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Thursday December 23, 1999 @06:05AM (#1449629)
    I don't know about JavaYou(tm), but JavaMe(tm) thinks that if we(c) just got rid of these trademarks, we(c) would have noproblem.com creating a Free Software(tm) version of Java(tm)(r)(c) which would run perfectly.
  • Actually, it's more like 43,000+ members. But that merely lends strength to DanaL's argument.

    Zontar The Mindless,

  • Just because he's the founder of the free source foundation and author of gcc, doesn't mean that the guy can't occasionally be wrong.
    Edward K. makes a valid point. Einstein was wrong about some things, too, after all (cf. "God desn't play dice with the universe" vs "Not only does God play dice with the universe, He often likes to throw them where we can't see them"). I think a lot of the flamers on both sides of the aisle are failing to get:

    We're all human, and we all make mistakes.

    It is particularly difficult to be objective when one has made a career largely out of being an ideologue. This is not to say that RMS isn't right about a lot of things, merely to say that it can sometimes be very hard to see outside the box, even when the box is labelled "FREEDOM".

    As for the disposition of Java, I's like to see Sun and ECMA make nicey-nicey for the benefit of the language/platform, at least for now. I don't think in this case that GPL is an instant solution -- unless and until there's a standard promulgated by a recognized non-corporate entity, or a maintainer with the stature of Linus T., I think we'd run the risk of seeing Java splintered, forked, whatever.

    Pardon me, just my 2 centibucks.

    Thanks.

    Zontar The Mindless,

  • "Well duh, if they're putting thousands of hours into it, they must be stupid to want to be paid to do so."

    And this is supposed to be part of an argument *for* the *BSD licenses...?

    The answer, of course, is:

    "No, they give it away, because they are so altruistic that the only thing they ask for is the same altruism back."


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • And GNU C++ didn't become a reasonably complete C++ compiler years after good commercial implementations were already out there

    That's funny. Taking into account that C++ just became a standard, and I still have to see a compiler that implements all the standard library properly.

    IMO GCC C++ is one of the better implementations out there that we got faster than many commercial ones (I used all the current versions of Visual Studio, Borland's stuff, KAI and a bunch others..)

    Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

  • Huh? How's then my GCC 2.95 code runs faster then
    VS6.0 (around 4% faster on PIII, it's a heavy duty simulation library) and support more of all the STL features features I need? Besides being able to compile it for the SPARC and AIX farms with no problems. - Unlike MSVC.

  • Yeah, maybe I am not on the cutting edge of feature use.. As I have to reuse old C libraries,
    nice STL style creeps in slowly. What is a shme IMO.
    Still, considering multiplatform support of the g++ it kicks commercial butt pretty hard....
  • I read through the 20 or so comments at JavaLobby. most were against a GPLed Java clone because the GPL allows forking. forking destroys Java's write-once-run-anywhere (WORA) property.

    Yes, that explains why the Linux kernel has forked so many times. Oh wait, it hasn't! Gee, what could be going on?

  • You don't get it. (Score:3)

    by SurfsUp ( 11523 ) on Thursday December 23, 1999 @07:33AM (#1449637)
    Open sourcing java and removing the standardization process would aggravate the embrace and extend problem that they are already facing from microsoft

    Who said anything about the removing the standardization process? You seem to be a little bit confused about this. What we're hearing now is a lot of key groups expressing intentions to get together and proceed with Java Standardization whether or not Sun cooperates. This could ony be good for Java. As other posters have stated in this thread, we have to keep both Microsoft and Sun from playing their little twisted corporate games, now that we've all been kind enough to consider adopting Java as a standard platform for business computing.

    I'd like to make it clear that for years I was an enthusiastic supporter of Sun's stewardship of the Java standard - and this was based on mainly on the quality of the api designs and documentation - but now I, like many others, am pretty much disenchanted with Sun and tend to lump them together with Microsoft in terms of the self-interested games they play.

    Sun has to let go of their baby and let it grow up. There chances of being able to win this fight are exactly zero, and the longer it goes on, the more it hurts java. Billg must be very happy about this.
  • Perhaps Joe Blow Quake Player doesn't care about compatibility, but for any decent MIS department, compatibility and standardization are the foremost concern, because that's the single largest thing you can do to reduce costs.

    This is a big reason that Windows and MS Office has been forced onto virtually every corporate desktop. By going with one vendor's end-to-end standard, you radically reduce compatibility problems, and lower costs significantly in the short term. The reason they aren't worried about Unix users' ability to read MS Word docs or IE web sites or Lotus Notes e-mail is because the easiest solution they have is to get rid of Unix.

    Now, I'm worried that I might be misread - I'm not advocating a MS or any heterogenous solution by any means. In fact, I tend to agree with the pedantic system analysts that in the long term the solution is open XML document formats and open network protocols. However, that wheel hasn't been entirely invented yet, so in the short term, I sympathize with people's pragmatic concerns.
    --
  • You are correct, "UNIX(tm)" is a specification, no longer a specific product, so in theory a Linux or BSD OS could be certified.

    However, pragmatically, the UNIX spec requires non-free software like CDE and Motif which most Linux OSes wouldn't use. In addition, I've heard that GNU isn't very interested in making their stuff 100% compliant with UNIX/POSIX specs.
    --
  • Many argue that the only reason RMS wants to free Java is so he can fork it. That's rubbish

    In fact his point is exactly the opposite. He argues that if (say) Microsoft forked GNU-Java, users could either fork it right back, or take Microsoft's improvements and roll them into other implementations. The result is more compatibility and more features.

    Although the folks at javalobby probably don't want to hear it, Java is going to fork eventually. Pretty soon IBM and MS and everyone else is just going to give up on Sun and sell their own version of Sun-"compatible" HotBrownLiquid. If the compatible versions are open source, everyone is better off than if there are proprietary forks.
    --

  • BSD troll versus Unix as a whole (Score:3)

    by IntlHarvester ( 11985 ) on Thursday December 23, 1999 @06:16AM (#1449643) Journal
    Furthermore, it's suprising how many Slashdot readers seem to be missing the entire point of reverse-engineering Unix -- Software is supposed to be source compatible with any Unix system.

    Indeed, leaving all of the politics aside, one of the biggest real-world freedoms granted by an Open Source Unix platform is that you are not tied to specific hardware, a specific vendor, or even a specific OS kernel. It shouldn't matter if you are running any given Linux or any given BSD OS, because the cost of migrating between them is relatively low.

    Instead, around here, it's always Linux versus BSD versus Solaris versus the world. Which I find odd, because considering the tiny market share Unix has on the desktop and low-end servers, it would seem that Unix as a platform should be advocated, not necessarily any specific implementation. The message to the NT-using rest of the world is getting drowned out in the noise of the fraternal politics.
    --

  • Re:There's a good debate on this... (Score:4)

    by Stiletto ( 12066 ) on Thursday December 23, 1999 @06:10AM (#1449644)
    Most of the pro-nonfree posters there Just Don't Get It.

    Opening up Java won't destroy the language. If anything it will make sure Java remains compatible across platforms by keeping the standard out of the hands of a single company (whether it be Microsoft or Sun).

    Many argue that the only reason RMS wants to free Java is so he can fork it. That's rubbish. The point of a free workalike implementation is to guarantee compatibility irrespective of a single company's shareholders' views.

    Take a look at the relationship between Mesa and OpenGL for an example. Although the Mesa project cannot use the word "OpenGL" (big deal), the project is most notable for the fact that it is for all intents and purposes API-compatible with OpenGL. I don't think we'd see Mesa diverging from OpenGL if it wants to maintain its base of develpoers and users.
    ________________________________
  • In my experience, free software is often not first to market.

    It took Emacs decades to mature. And GNU C++ didn't become a reasonably complete C++ compiler years after good commercial implementations were already out there. Mature C/C++-based GUI toolkits took a few years to come out after mature commercial C/C++ GUI toolkits. Same for free, mature, powerful UNIX-like kernels.

    It will take Mozilla quite some time to catch up with Internet Explorer in terms of features and stability. And free versions of Java will likely take years to catch up with Sun Java in terms of features and performance.

    And I think there is nothing wrong with that. While it is nice when free software actually is first (and it sometimes is), the utility and importance of free software isn't diminished by coming out later.

  • I have been using C++ since before the first compiler was available commercially, and I have a lot of experience with the various UNIX compilers. I always liked and preferred GNU C++, but it was also behind in terms of robust implementations of new language features compared to other UNIX implementations (and I have reported quite a few bugs in it over the years, including some code generation bugs).

    As I said before, I don't think that's a problem at all. Free software doesn't have to be first to market. In fact, I think it's bad to set up such expectations. Because free software has been oversold as delivering not only the best, most extensible, and most robust product, but also being first to market, people are unreasonably declaring projects like Mozilla failures or at least off-target.

  • Always interesting to get feedback from RMS. This one is real good. Java is a major player in the future of alternative operating systems by giving programmers the ability to code once for many platforms. Java is good, but the license issue is a real problem. As long as the Java license does not conform to free software standards, we will never have a guarantee that we will still be able to use it freely tommorow.

    First Toast
  • If you really want to see what the Java developer community thinks of these issues, check out some of the discussions that went on in JavaLobby last week:

    Java and GPL [javalobby.org]

    WORA scorecard [javalobby.org]

    CVS for Java2 Standard Edition - Do You Want It? [javalobby.org]

    I know that for some reason, it's not "cool" to like Java on /., but for those of us who love Java and use it, there's no going back, so we're trying to make the best of what we've got, and what we can get.
  • I read through the 20 or so comments at JavaLobby. most were against a GPLed Java clone because the GPL allows forking. forking destroys Java's write-once-run-anywhere (WORA) property. these commentators at JavaLobby value WORA over freedom. the best single comment is here [javalobby.org]. (scrolling up and down brings you to the other 19 or so comments.)
  • How is BSD "forever free"?

    Let's say I have program P licensed under BSD. People contribute code, P excels at it's job, time marches on. People get hit by buses (meaning they leave P-development for whatever reason). Eventually company C has the last remaining copy of P. P is still good, so C compiles it and sells the binaries but keeps the source secret. Uh-oh, P is no longer free.

    If P was GPL'd this would not have happened.
    ---
  • Ridiculous or not, you haven't answered the question. Your statement: "Once something is placed under the BSDL, that code remains forever free." is demonstrably false. Conversely, the GPL has no such (known--your point about not being tested in court is well-taken) flaws.

    In anycase, the problem doesn't have to be simply "misplacing the code". What if company C forks P (creating P') and adds new killer feature F to it? Nobody has that source code either. Again, only with the GPL (and similar protective licenses) can once-free code remain so.

    I used to have an online paper discussing the BSD, GPL and other licenses from a game-theory point of view, but I've moved and cancelled my ISP service so it's gone now. So instead of pointing you there I'll refer you to Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", particularly the section(s) on Evolutionarily Stable Strategies. Then ask yourself: "Can a world of BSD software be 'invaded' by non-sharers? And if so, what does that mean for the BSD population?"
    ---
  • I can see why so many people hate you. Talk about viral. First, my statement are not FUD. Why? Because 1) they are fact and 2) they are not marketing related.

    Second, just why can't the BSD license be withdrawn from P? Since "[t]he source is available for you to do whatsover you please with it", what's to stop me from take large (not to say full) portions and incorporate them into my own, non-free application?

    And before you respond with comments about "FUD" or how stupid or lame I am, why not go back and copy my example into your next reply? That will make it easier to respond to the actual issues.
    ---
  • "The original didn't die."

    Let's say for the sake of argument that this is true (but see point #2 below). The source code that I copied IS NO LONGER FREE. *GASP* Just like I said!

    In any case, I doubt your statement will remain true. As I explained on my website, if there are two programs P1 and P2, one being BSD'd and the other under a proprietary license L, P2 will eventually dominate. Why? Because for P2 to get all of P1's features (including stability, robustness, etc) is a simple matter of copying the source code. That means that P2 is always as good as P1 and probably better. P1 eventually dies. Good-bye freedom of that source code.

    The GPL fixes this flaw by only sharing with people who share back.
    ---
  • "You have no right to coerce him into giving away his work product for free."

    Correct, I don't. That's why I don't coerce. By placing the GPL on my code, I give people the option of playing nice with me (i.e. sharing back) or going away. BSD developers, on the other hand, give people the choice of playing nice or screwing me hard.
    ---
  • OK, I am programmer A, I wrote program P under the BSD license. Company C took my code, added some killer features F and released PF under a proprietary license. How was I hurt?

    1) Money: I was selling P before, but now everyone buys PF. And I can't add F to P because I have no source code. C benefitted from me, but I didn't benefit in return. Unequal "contract".

    2) Respect: Since BSD no longer has the "advertisement clause" (IIRC) no one knows that PF is based on P. *I* may not even know it. Suddenly P is just a "freeware version" of PF. And a shoddy one, because it lacks F.

    3) Livelihood/fun: Because of 1 and 2 I no longer want to work on P.

    4) Ethics/Morals: We all agree that libre code is a good thing, right? Well here I went and took us down a path that turned P (BSD'd) into PF (proprietary). Whoops, sorry everyone.

    In any case, I'm not saying you shouldn't use the BSD (although personally I think it is foolish). What I'm saying is that:

    a) Code under the BSD is not "forever free" (your original claim) because it takes no steps to help future iterations. It is only free for it's own lifetime.

    b) The GPL does not suffer from that flaw.

    c) Despite your inflammatory sloganeering, the GPL is not "viral". It is cooperative.
    ---
  • The GPL is constantly concerned that someone, somewhere might be coding for profit instead of giving away their labours.

    Nobody can logically advocate the BSD license, yet think the only way to benefit from software development is to restrict copying and usage. If you believed that, you'd use a closed license.

    I also think that it is logically inconsitent for BSD license advocates to criticize GPL advocates, although the opposite is not true.

    Let's start with the GPL position. The GPL advocate thinks software should be free -- always with no exceptions. The restrictions of the GPL are not restrictions at all if you believe this -- its an illusion, mere legal flummery. People should be free to do what they will, because they should be free, not because the license says so. Likewise the "freedoms" of the BSD license are equally meaningless. The freedom to make free software proprietary is a freedom to do what no right thinking person would consider doing.

    Now the BSD advocate on the other hand thinks that free software is a good thing, but there are legitimate reasons to have closed licenses (otherwise, the freedom to make closed forks would be pointless). So far I am with them, but to criticize GPL on the basis that it is insufficiently free makes no sense, if it is perfectly OK to take software someone has given you and make a derived work that is completely restricted.


  • For pity's sake, GCC wasn't enough? No GCC, no Linux. Period. Never would have happened.

    Bison wasn't enough? How man free languages like PHP would exist without Bison? No Bison, and either the developers would waste a lot of time reinventing the wheel, or we'd be stuck with a bunch of recursive descent parsers.

    Not to denigrate fetchmail, but you cannot compare it in importance to these; perhaps the only thing that comes close is Perl, or perhaps the Linux kernel. If you have worked on anything even remotely as important I'd be very surprised to hear it.

    I'm not sure exactly which projects RMS is working on these days, but if we decided to retire from coding entirely he'd still be a giant in my book. Exactly when can a man start resting on his laurels?
  • The "ecological niche" didn't exist to be filled yet. GCC created the niche.

    I know this seems strange to people these days, but way back in the eighties you routinely got Unix boxen with no development tools at all. The development tools were very expensive add ons.

    Maybe Linus could have scraped together the dough and used MKC or Borland C. Would it have taken off with out free developent tools?
  • I get you now. You're saying: "You guys shut the fuck up. Only we get to bitch at you, not you at us."

    As a matter of fact, you don't get me. I happen to agree with the BSD point of view. However, I don't criticize people for using GPL, becuase it is as nonsensical as saying you restrict people all you want, as long as you don't restrict them too little.

    The BSDL stance as a pragmatic one. By not restricting downstream licensing, it is saying use whatever license you want, so long as you give some modicum of credit.

    The GPL stance, however is a moral one, so it makes sense for them to get upset about BSD.

  • Well, your position is certainly an interesting one.

    If I understand your point, to deny somebody the opportunity to do something immoral is in itself immoral, because it denies them the chance to choose the side of the angels, as it were. Having been raised RC, I feel some sympathy with this point of view, but I think you have to be careful about how far you apply it. Do you leave your door unlocked so as not to deny the potential burglar the path of virtue?

    In reality, under GPL, downstream recipients really still have to make the choice whether abide by the license or not. The license simply makes clear what the intent of the developer is. If you release software under BSDL with the intent that the software remain forever free, you are at least sending some conflicting messages.
  • Sure, everyone knows that. But would it have gone beyond a small circle of hobbyists without gcc? How about without all the other utilities that use gcc for porting to Linux (perl, apache etc.)?
  • No..they havent. If you want free java code head over to : GJT [gjt.org]. You can also contribute yer code to the GPLed tree.
  • nope. sorry. youre wrong no matter how you put it.
    Consider this :
    [a] I'm a lone opensource developer. i develop package X under BSD. I put it on geocities. geocities gets bought by yahoo and i cant access my original source and my site gets shut down due to the fact i cant agree to the new licence terms.
    [b] Since my package was downloaded in binary for convenience, my users dont have my source -- at least none i can find.
    [c] i look in my backups - oops..forgot to back it up.
    [d] Company M steps in. They have my source. they offer to sell it back to me for $5000. They also sell a binary version for $500.
    What do i do ?

    Under GPL :
    [d] I tell a user who bought their software to ask for a source disk. They refuse. i & the FSF threaten to sue. i get my source back.

    I understand your arguement -- you want everything with no strings attached and thats an honourable goal - but this is a hostile planet and you have to guard your own interests.
  • Witness the fate of the BSD's - originally compatible due to their shared code base in BSD4.4, presently incompatible due to different directions in development. And that over a relatively short time span.
    Are you honestly that misinformed, or are you just trolling for a bite? Whatever the case, direct empirical evidence indicates--at least to me--that you're wrong. I smell the FUDge factor here.

    What evidence? The evidence is that I have never once had a problem compiling the very same program between both OpenBSD/Sparc and FreeBSD/Intel. Am I just lucky? Are you just unlucky? Are you really sure about what you just said? Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, and hterefore everything keeps coming out right--or maybe your statement needs retraction or amplification.

  • Note, the BSD license doesn't give this protection.
    Wrong. The GPL doesn't give the freedoms that the BSD licence does. The GPL is constantly concerned that someone, somewhere might be coding for profit instead of giving away their labours. The BSDL doesn't fricking care about what others do. It only cares about its own source. Something that's BSD licensed is forever free.

    On the other hand, anything that's GPL'd is forever coercive. And, like homeopathy, no matter how many millions of times you dilute a piece of it with the fruits of your own labours, it retains its 100% potency.

    At least, that's what they would have you believe. Of course, this is untested. This strange action at a distance is something even Einstein would doubt, not to mention any judge. The theory is unsupported in any other intellectual property case law.

    If people do not wish to help me, that too is their choice, and I would never dream of compelling them to do something against their wills. They own their code, and I own my code. Very simple stuff.

    Your choice: forever free, or forever coercive. I know what my choice is: if people wish to help me, that's their choice. That's immoral in my universe.

    If people do not wish to help me, that too is their choice, and I would never dream of compelling them to do something against their wills. They own their code, and I own my code. Very simple stuff. Their additions are their work, not mine. Far be it from me to claim otherwise.

  • First, why do you care about binary compatibility? Down that route lie viruses. Unix is a source compatible system, and is stronger because of that.

    Secondly, when you say "emulation", it's not like a Sparc emulating an Intel. All it does is revector the syscalls to pretend there's a kernel there with a different idea of what goes where. It still runs at full speed. This isn't like binary emulation at all. It's not that big a deal.

  • Oh don't be lame. You're saying that you misplaced all copies of the source code, and now the last person with a copy won't give it to you? That's ridiculous.

    Once something is placed under the BSDL, that code remains forever free. However, this is not a prurient licence, and makes no claims on anyone else's code. It plays well and gets along with others.

    I swear, there must be something in the water up there in Boston. I think Neal Stephenson's Zodiac was right.

  • . Your statement: "Once something is placed under the BSDL, that code remains forever free." is demonstrably false
    Your statement is pure FUD. Something that's BSDL'd is certainly free, and you cannot change that. The licence cannot be post facto withdrawn from the software freed by the BSDL. The source is available for you to do whatsover you please with it. Your scenario of everybody misplacing all copies is stupid.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to own your own efforts later, but this is of no consequence in a licence that is designed to be non-viral.

  • just why can't the BSD license be withdrawn from P? Since "[t]he source is available for you to do whatsover you please with it", what's to stop me from take large (not to say full) portions and incorporate them into my own, non-free application?
    Irrelevant. That's your code then. It's free for the using. The original didn't die. Do what you want with it. There's nothing wrong with using something that's free to make something that isn't. IT DOES NOT HURT YOU. It's no skin off your nose. Your stuff is still free.

    There's some fundamental misunderstanding here. No one has any charity anymore. Just give it away. Stop hoarding. Stop telling people what rules there are. Remove the rules and free the software.

  • In anycase, the problem doesn't have to be simply "misplacing the code". What if company C forks P (creating P') and adds new killer feature F to it? Nobody has that source code either
    Wrong. The owner has that code. He may do wiht him as he wishes. You have no right to coerce him into giving away his work product for free.

    Your rights stop with your code, and do not extend to others' code. You can say anything you want about your code, but no more.

    Free code has no restrictions.

  • I'm going to make it as easy as I can. Software product X is free. It is used to make software product XY, which is then sold commercially under a typical fee-for-licence arrangement. This makes XY nonfree. But the X program is still free. Now, and in the future. Forever. That's why it's forever free.
  • It does *NOT* screw you to have your software used commercially. This is your problem: You're afraid that someone might make money. What's your beef?

    Your product, X, is still free, still yours, still open, still accessible. What happens with commercial product XY *does*not*matter* to you. It *does*not*hurt* you.

    Are you really this blind?

  • Explain, very slowly how it is not about money, and how it hurts. You need to prove damages now, counsellor. We await your response. Or we'll throw you out of court.
  • Holy ignorance, Batman! Java born out based on C++ who on his turn is based in C. Without Kernigham, Ritchie and Stroustrup Java could never be thought about!

    And one question to you: Can you create a full and good operating system(like Linux) with Java? And C++ continues to be much more fast than code that run in Java Virtual Machines. Java have its virtues but can never substitute a powerful language like C.

  • RMS does much better when he describes the philosophical and technical issues behind his positions. As it is, this article is full of unsupported assertions, questionable facts, and general gobbledygook.

    For example, the assertion that "putting users in control" (that is, opening the source, preferably under the GPL) is the best way to assure continued compatibility. I am no philosopher of science, but it seems to me that putting users in control and allowing code forking is to encourage incompatibility. Witness the fate of the BSD's - originally compatible due to their shared code base in BSD4.4, presently incompatible due to different directions in development. And that over a relatively short time span.

    Another example, his trust in the market to favour a Java-compatible implementation. As such things go, I doubt that the market would favour any such thing. The most popular pieces of software, word processors and web browsers, are perpetually crippled with respect to backwards and forwards compatibility, much less interoperability. What the market favours is price, availability, and support. Compatibility, it seems, has been left by the wayside. This may be short-sighted, and I believe it is, but RMS may be giving us, as an industry, much too much credit here.

    I can only hope that he didn't intend this piece of correspondence for publication. As is the case with many visionaries (and I have no doubt that he is a visionary), he needs to tone down his message to sell it to the masses. Right now, I doubt that anyone is any more sold on open source, and a golden opportunity wasted.

    --
  • I think that the point is that most users don't demand compatibility - systems analysts and other such pedantic characters may desire it and even write it in, but when you're dealing with joe developer, much less joe user, thoughts of compatibility are relatively irrelevant. It's almost always a matter of price-performance and relevance to the business case.

    --
  • They run them through binary emulation. By the same token, you could say that Linux on x86 is compatible with old atari systems, merely because an emulator exists. It's clearly not so.

    BSD advocates on a public discussion forum are all well and good, but look at the documentation, even the most basic documentation, before you make an assertion. From the OpenBSD FAQ:


    1.1 - What is OpenBSD?

    The [7]OpenBSD project produces a freely available, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based UNIX-like operating system. Our efforts place emphasis on portability, standardization, correctness, and security. [8]OpenBSD supports binary emulation of most binaries from SVR4 (Solaris),FreeBSD, Linux, BSDI, SunOS, and HPUX.


    Oh, and I use OpenBSD as well as Linux. Nice try.

    --
  • I disagree.

    Larry's keeping tight hold of perl (as perl; you're free to reuse anything to do with perl so long as you don't call it perl) for the sake of perl. He trusts his own judgement, in other words, but he's always amenable to new arguments.

    Sun, on the other hand, is keeping tight hold of Java as a revenue centre. The good of the application as a functional and usable piece of work comes second, or sometimes not at all, if I can borrow from Austin Powers ;-). I don't think that they'd incorporate architectural changes which come from outside their core group (it seems that they've rejected all proposals so far) and the SCSL makes a mockery of open source.

    I would feel hurt, both emotionally and professionally, if I'd taken Sun's goodwill at face value, like the Blackdown team did. Despite their occasional gesture towards open source, they're Just Another Corporation at heart.


    --
  • I haven't had trouble compiling. However, I was referring to binary compatibility, not source compatibility. (Of course, there's someone else in this thread who insists that emulation equates compatibility, so perhaps it's possible to go too far the other way).

    For that matter, I really haven't had that much difficulty porting stuff from BSD to Linux, either. Maybe I *am* lucky, or I just haven't tried anything really really difficult yet.

    --
  • No, the same programs don't work (or don't even compile) on all of them. There are library incompatibilities, for one. BSD has gone farthest by releasing a user-space linux emulator.

    --
  • Is that necessarily true? Remember that three of the four main BSD's remain freely available and code is freely shared between them. A number of OpenBSD architectures are based on ports to those architectures made by the NetBSD team. It would be easy to create a "main" BSD distribution by folding changes made in any of these back in.

    I think that you can attribute the forking not to commercial gain or a need to keep changes secret, but to different directions in development philosophy. FreeBSD concentrates on x86 development, NetBSD on maintaining the maximum number of available architectures, and OpenBSD (my personal favourite) on security.

    It's not altogether inconceivable that Linux might fork the same way in the future. Remember that Linux is just a kid compared to *BSD, even though it's outpaced *BSD in recent years.

    --
  • Actually, in my experience, a lot of the JavaLobby members tend to be anti-Sun. I remember a couple of flamewars this summer about whether or not there was too much 'Sun is Bad' knee-jerk reactions.

    Most of the folks over there are Java developers ( meaning they develop stuff in Java, not work on Java itself) and there main concerns are pragmatic. They mostly want a java implementation that works well.

    With over 30000 members, you don't see a unified opinion.

    Dana


  • Maybe, but what if, oh say M$ pumped out a perl implementatio, added a bunch of keywords, elminated most of the standard modules (replacing them with their own, Windows-specific ones). Then called the product Perl and started selling it heavily.

    Of course, we could keep could using 'Wall-style' perl, but I'm sure there would be one or two angry voices voices in the perl community.

    In a way, having one strong company with the resources to duke it out with M$ in court was a good thing. It prevent M$ from once again usurping someone else's technology.

    Dana
  • It probably is. It was also illegal to violate Sun's license agreement and claim that their product was Java. But the did.

    Does LW have the cash to battle Microsoft's legal department in court?

    Dana

  • One of Sun's fears... (Score:3)

    by DanaL ( 66515 ) on Thursday December 23, 1999 @06:37AM (#1449726)
    I don't think is too worried about other people implementing Java. It's a secondary concern. What there are really scared off (amongst other things) is people changing the language.

    M$, for instance, added new keywords to J++ because they didn't like anonymous inner classes. (Apparently, Sun tried the Delegate keyword that M$ added in an early version and didn't like it). On Javalobby this summer, there was a long debate about someone who had created a pre-processor and was trying to add Generic types to the language.

    Yes, open source would allow new features to be added quickly, but it's different when you add features to software. Having a bunch of people adding cool new features, or their favourite things from other languages, will break the language specification.

    I'm sure Larry Wall keeps a fairly tight fist over what new keywords (not APIs or libraries) are added to Perl, and that is what Sun is trying to do with Java. (That, and make a lot of money...)

    Dana
  • Agreed. However, some prefer to force the community to give back. This is probably based on the notion that we may act in self interest otherwise.

    Either way, I'm sure business will either extend or modularize to a point where they are not obligated to submit that which gives them an edge.
  • Thank you for that absurd story.

    Anyway, you could have just stated that your expectation in giving to the community is that of forced return if any intend to expand or extend your product. In other words, we're enforcing community.

    This does work very well when the community isn't reliant on the software which they are programming. This is why you see the the commercialization of Linux bringing commercial or more restricted licensing on extensions of the products they offer. A business model which relies on non differentiated product and very competitive support schemes is not sustainable.

    The BSD license asks for the good in human nature to give back -- whereas the GPL demands it -- and even then, authors often demand to profit from the commercialization of their efforts.

    I do, however, diverge from others in that I can see that both licences can be good. It's your choice to impose restrictions on how free your software is.

    However, those that demand software to be GPL'd are missing the point completely. If a business model is based upon profits from software, there is nothing wrong with that. What I think some people are missing is that they are not directly dependent on the software that they build -- so the GPL can't hurt their bottom line. Arguing the virtues of free and commercial licenses without applying situationals is nonsense.

    Could Sun really completely GPL Java without losing money due to the developers they have in-house? Their expert knowledge would only go so far as expert knowledge in competing firms when intending to offer support. This is why so many people argue against blind hordes of people advocating the application of the GPL on everything.
  • How was I hurt?

    You weren't hurt at all; You gave your software away for free. Oh, you were talking about being hypocritical and wanting money or work from others in exchange for your "free" software.

    The GPL does not suffer from that flaw.

    Just because you do not wish to offer your software for free with no strings doesn't mean the BSD license is flawed.

    And people wonder why the commercialization of Linux brings proprietary or more limited licenses in additions to their distribution. Well duh, if they're putting thousands of hours into it, they must be stupid to want to be paid to do so. Or should they just give their time and competitive advantages to every company in the industry? If you think a support based business model (which is very competitive since we give everything we do right back to the community) that also demands many in house developers is a sustainable model, you're crazy.

    Code under the BSD is not "forever free"

    False. Your definition of free includes an obligation for those adding to your product to contribute code back. The BSD license does not force this. Under the BSD license, the modifications to your product belongs to each programmer who does so. If they want to give back to the community, they will. If they want to spend thousands of hours extending this product and find selling it is the only way to eat, they will. This is free, the GPL definition is less free.

    One of your arguments is that using the BSD license would be stupid. Why? Because you demand each and every addition to your product to come directly back to you? There are plenty of BSD licensed products that have a sustainable community.

    1) Money: I was selling P before

    Then it wasn't free. Either that or you're tricking people into buying completely free software -- perhaps disguised as your expert knowledge in pointing them to it.

    4) Ethics/Morals

    There's nothing lost because those that use the BSD license choose to actually give their software time/work away for free. The GPL demands software and time/work in return.

    Every license has its uses. Use whatever the hell you want -- but don't put down those who wish to actually give their software away for free (or those who wish to sell it for that matter).

    "GPL is not 'viral'."

    Agreed. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. It is, however, not a good idea to use if you wish to directly make money from programming software. The same, of course, goes for the BSD license.

    While this post may make it seem like I am a BSD loving advocate, see my previous posts to understand that licensing is purely one relating to a number of situationals.
  • So in other words, give us the code AND fuck off.
  • Congratulations, you just eliminated the only honest ways for the author to earn a living after having finished P

    It was under the BSD license. He didn't care if another company used his code. If it didn't stop him before, it won't stop him now.

    If you don't mind earning your money

    Yes, true. There are many cases where this is possible. Unfortunately though, many companies want a solution now instead of later. This means putting all your time in before and selling the product later. There is that as well as the pain in finding enough customers to collaborate on pricing schemes for you to get that done. It may work for small time work, but I doubt that it scales well.

    However, that doesn't stop me from releasing parts of my products with a BSD license. I've been working on a Java imaging SDK that supports more formats than JIMI and Advanced Imaging SDK. It has, unfortunately not seen the light of day yet in the free software world, because there has been argument that they own it at least in part because I worked on it during company time. They of course will remain unnamed..
  • Shock? No, We'd die of old age. Everyone would try to get the world's first frag in Quake/Java, and some of us would never give up..

    Putting my +1 to good use; Overriding a moderator.

  • There's a good debate on this... (Score:4)

    by AugstWest ( 79042 ) on Thursday December 23, 1999 @05:29AM (#1449739)
    ...going on over at JavaLobby [javalobby.org], which is where I believe this was first posted.
  • WORA is a myth. I've yet to a Java program of complexity greater than "Hello World" run the same way on two different VMs. Currently perl is more WORA than Java is.
  • Stalinist socialism is an oxymoron.

    Socialism is a system where the workers own the
    means for producing goods and hold political
    power

    Stalins system was a system where workers did
    the work for producing goods, but stalin held all
    the power.

    hardly equivalent. GPL is a very socialist idea.
    The workers (coders) do the work, they share in
    the product of the work (the code). Whoever does
    the work makes the decisions (holds the power)
    and of course anyone who needs the code, then
    shares in the fruits of their labor.

    nice system...be nice if all industries worked
    that way.

  • Re:Not RMS's best work (Score:3)

    by Deadbolt ( 102078 ) on Thursday December 23, 1999 @06:18AM (#1449746)

    I am no philosopher of science, but it seems to me that putting users in control and allowing code forking is to encourage incompatibility.

    Then how do you explain the fact that projects like GCC, GDB, and the Linux kernel have not forked? The only big free software package that I can think of right now that has had a major fork has been Emacs, but I don't believe that anyone has suffered and died from incompatibility between the two. Plus, the GPL ensures that users can take whatever they want from each and make whatever suits their needs best. How is this bad?

    ESR writes in the Halloween Document about how projects with the most open source distribution have the least tendency to fork -- I refer you to the commentary there on opensource.org.

    The most popular pieces of software, word processors and web browsers, are perpetually crippled with respect to backwards and forwards compatibility, much less interoperability. What the market favours is price, availability, and support. Compatibility, it seems, has been left by the wayside.

    This is evidence of the competing closed-source products and the business practices that drive them, not of a failure on the part of the marketplace to demand compatibility. The users have no *power* to enforce compatibility if the source is closed. If the source to both browsers were open, I think RMS would say that the incompatibilities and extensions would be written out or merged. In any case, his point is that the lack of freedom for the users creates an environment where such incompatibilities can arise.

  • Stallman the visionary vs Stallman the politician (Score:3)

    by notsosilentbob ( 111705 ) on Thursday December 23, 1999 @07:39AM (#1449761)
    I truly admire what RMS has done in the past. Emacs, GPL (truly a thing of beauty), and the entire GNU project in general.

    However, I sincerely wish that he'd stop the FUD. As a visionary, I believe that he has a responsibility to try and be above the rest of us -- to be clear, calm, a master of self control, a Jesus figure if you will. But lately he has been doing what I consider "mean" things: calling for a boycott of Amazon, throwing FUD up against Java.

    Now, whether Amazon or Sun deserve it is besides the point. He should be taken a more careful, thoughtful position.

    Maybe it's that I'm starting to get the sense of hatered coming from him lately, and that saddens me. I'd much rather see a person that I'm following be gentler, calmer. Instead, he's becoming political and using his power to hurt.

    Case in point is the Amazon lawsuit. Now, first, I HATE that Amazon is sueing over it's one click patent. However, they do have a legal right to enforce their (crappy) patent. The right way for this to fall out is in the court system. I hope they lose. But RMS's call for boycott really bothers me -- I'd much rather that he'd reiterated his stance on the enforcement of patents and stated that he was disturbed by the Amazon lawsuit.

    I'm also worried that there are too many blind RMS followers out there. If /. postings are any evidence, there are thousands of RMS followers that will jump to action over anything he says. That scares me, especially now that he's showing signs of using his power in a hardcore political fashion, rather than selling GPL on the strengths of truth an beauty.

    With regards to java, it seems that sun has every right to do with it as they please. The wrote it, they have a copyright on it. I wish that RMS would say things like "I really wish that sun would GPL Java, but of course it's their right to do what they wish and I respect that".

    Contrary to what many seem to feel here, TELLING companies to GPL things and boycotting them when they don't is NOT truth and beauty. Asking them calmly and with an understanding ear for why they may seem put off by the notion of giving away their IP is the right way to go about it, IMNSHO.

    Well, sorry for running off at the mouth. This whole turn of events just makes me sad.
  • I do not believe that I missed his point. I agree about open sourcing java. I agree that Sun was way out of line on the Blackdown issue and the SCPL is a slavedriver license.

    I disagree that the situation should be a free-for-all-write-whatever-you-want-and-call-it-J ava clusterf*ck.

    You CAN already write a cleanroom JVM and implement the Java standard library. (As RMS himself pointed out there are already several such versions floating around).

    Java(tm) is a Trademark. The trademark belongs to Sun, the name is their intellectual property like it or not to do with as they please.

    The standards testing process is only necessary to use the Java name.

    Stallman's call to allow users to implement compatibility or not is irrelevant as long as you don't call your product 'Java'. The name Java is already watered down enough by Microsoft's misimplementation of it.

    Going GPL and saying do whatever the hell you want with it and you can still call it Java would be a death knell for the 'brand' Java.

    At this point having the 100% Pure Java seal of approval or right to call a product Java is a right that Sun controls. Its their trade mark, they can do that.

    Sun has a lot of their credibility tied up in their association with the Java name, and if they let Joe on the corner write his Java(tm) virtual machine and call it Java with no screening or compatibility testing the brand would lose all distinction and they could lose the trademark and people would run roughshod over the Sun name with Java* this-that-and-the-other all of which being in varying states of compatibility and everything done with Java in the title ruining Sun's credibility.

    In other words, Sun isn't going to give up control of the Java name to the FSF or the ECMA standards commitee. The have too much of their company's credibility on the line.

    Open sourcing it is not a bad idea, but would have to be done carefully given Sun's investment in the trademark.

  • GPL'd Java? (Score:3)

    by Edward Kmett ( 123105 ) on Thursday December 23, 1999 @05:41AM (#1449772) Homepage
    RMS seems to be mouthing off about God and everything lately.

    Now I love open source and free software as much as the next guy, and while Sun's decision to pull Java out of the standardization process kind of pissed on my cornflakes, I can take it in stride.

    But whats with RMS's insistance that open source will fix every ill known to man? Open sourcing java and removing the standardization process would aggravate the embrace and extend problem that they are already facing from microsoft.

    Every little embedded java implementor would go off and add little extensions to improve their implementation and it would fragment into a ton of insular groups each convinced that their way is the right way, like early c compilers.

    Java's licensing is all about maintaining a portable compatible development environment. I agree their methodology is a little flawed, but throwing standardization to the wind is not IMNSHO a good policy.

    If you want to implement your non-Sun 'java' implementation, go ahead, just don't call it 'Java' and you can change until your heart's content.

    I suppose open sourcing java itself wouldn't be all that bad from a bug-fix standpoint, but RMS's call for 'permitting unlimited technical changes' is opening a can of worms that Sun (understandably) would rather keep well sealed.

Slashdot Top Deals

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Close