McNealy Answers: No Open Source Java

comforteagle writes "Sun CEO Scott McNealy has finally answered the long awaited question that has been on the minds of open source and Java developers. Will Sun open source Java? No. He stated today that Sun sees no solution solved from open sourcing Java that isn't already addressed."

Open Source is a verb?

When pressed about his decision, Scott McNealy admitted, "Well, we were going to open source Java until we realized that the phrase 'open source' is really more of a noun than a verb."

Re:Open Source is a verb?

In addition, Sun announced plans to implement Java in Java. The porting will be done by Sun's Java team using a Java IDE and Java compilers on thin-client boxes powered by Java. When asked if the Java-only restriction might be responsible for the estimated Fall of 2031 ship date, McNealy answered, "You are missing the point."

Re:Open Source is a verb?

Interesting that you keep getting more mod points for funny, even though, as earlier replies to you have pointed out, your joke is wrong by at least 33 years or so. Java on java has existed for years.

The porting will be done by Sun's Java team using a Java IDE and Java compilers on thin-client boxes powered by Java.

The fascinating thing is that these things all exist and are developing at a furious pace.

McNealy answered, "You are missing the point."

Well, a lot of people on Slashot seem to be missing McNealy's point, so I guess that makes things even. :-)

The source for Java is available for download. You are free to make a Java clone, as long as you don't call it Java (just like Microsoft has done with C#/.Net). You can join the Java Community Project and influence how Java is developed. Are the possible risks for Sun worth what little more Sun could gain by Open Sourcing it? Doubtful.

Re:Open Source is a verb?

Just another example of the verbitization of the English language.

"Googling" is another popular one.

"I was up all night Googling your mom."

Re:Open Source is a verb?

I couldn't find the pictures to go with it, but the text I've been able to glean from several Google hits goes something like this:

Calvin: "I like to verb words."

Hobbes: "What?"
Calvin: "I take nouns and adjectives and use them as verbs. Remember when 'access' was a thing? Now it's something you do. It got verbed."
Calvin: "Verbing weirds language."
Hobbes: "Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."

But the original quote, "Any noun can be verbed," is variously credited to either Edsger Dijkstra and Alan Perlis.

How can we fracture it?

If you don't open source it, how can we fork it?

But seriously folks...

God strike me down for saying it, but he's right. Java as a core language is fine. It's libraries are decent. What's more, it is infinitely extensible through the addition of third party libraries.

Why would you need an open source Java?

Re:How can we fracture it?

Why would you need an open source Java?

Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

Re:How can we fracture it?

Wouldn't you say that religious fervor is preventing those distros from realizing the benefits of a very good language?

Re:How can we fracture it?

Care to explain how Java's license that forbids distribution [debian.org] the fault of the distributor?

Re:How can we fracture it?

The license does not prohibit redistribution. Debian has just decided the license doesn't suit them is all. That's Debian's issue not Sun's.

For the record here are the re-distribution clauses from the 1.4.2_04JDK:

B. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including, but not limited to the Java Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file) and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file), (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.

C. License to Distribute Redistributables. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including but not limited to the Java Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to reproduce and distribute those files specifically identified as redistributable in the Software "README" file ("Redistributables") provided that: (i) you distribute the Redistributables complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file), and only bundled as part of Programs, (ii) you do not distribute additional software intended to supersede any component(s) of the Redistributables (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file), (iii) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in or on the Redistributables, (iv) you only distribute the Redistributables pursuant to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in the Agreement, (v) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.

Linux VPS hosting *with* Sun JVMs [rimuhosting.com]

Re:How can we fracture it?

(vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.

That, for instance, does not sound like a term that any distro would be particularily happy with (or, in the case of a community effort like Debian, even possible).

Re:How can we fracture it?

That's standard though.
Say someone got java, added a trojan into it's binary, and distributed it.

Sun doesn't want to be blamed for stuff like that, and just about any software licence will have a clause like that, along with a user-licence that says if they didn't get it directly from the company, The company forfits all liability.

Re:How can we fracture it?

Did you actually read it? People can sue Debian for faults they get when running their Sun implemented Java programs. That clause is revolting.

That's useless

distribute the Software complete and unmodified

I read this as SUN forbidding Debian to package their JVM in a Debian package.

do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software

This would mean Debian wouldn't be allowed to ship with gcj, Jikes RVM, JRockit, Kaffe or whatever. To me it sounds quite unreasonable for SUN to want to be able to veto what can go into Debian.

defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software

So SUN wants Debian to pay their legal fees? Silly Debian for not wanting to do that.

To me these terms sound quite unreasonable, I know I wouldn't want to adhere to them if I could decide what went into Debian.

Re:How can we fracture it?

> Wouldn't you say that religious fervor is preventing those distros from realizing the benefits of a very good language?

*silence*

*the OSS judges confer for 10 minutes looking confused*

*cough*

Someone gets up and yells, "Burn the witch!!!"

Problem solved.

Re:How can we fracture it?

Not at all. I think what holds them back is the license.

Software is confidential and copyrighted. Title to Software and all associated intellectual property rights is retained by Sun and/or its licensors. Except as specifically authorized in any Supplemental License Terms, you may not make copies of Software, other than a single copy of Software for archival purposes.

Re:How can we fracture it?

Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications.

Doesn't that say more about Linux than it does about Sun?

Re:How can we fracture it?

Actually this would not be a problem only with Linux, but even across other operating systems.

Like I indicated in another post, there is nothing to stop Microsoft from having their own "windows-only" forked version of Java. And nothing to stop from the GNU/Debian crowd to have their own "puritanical" version. And nothing to stop from IBM to have their own "enterprise-ready" version of Java.

If you notice, even in case of Linux, Linus and a handful of others actually maintain the core kernel code. In case of language, it would be difficult to have this kind of a central point of control - the forking would be really hard to control, and would only lead to more confusion and more complexity, not to mention serious incompatibility issues - all of which flies against the very principles that Java has been built on.

Given that, why aren't linux and perl fractured?

If sun followed the linux model - and key engineers at sun reviewed each change and made sure that it was ok to add to the release, and followed through everything openly, then it would work.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Where are all the forks of linux? Just because its a language does not mean it will fork and fracture. Perl isn't forked to hell. Nor is python. Nor are many open source languages.

If sun truly believed in open source (and I don't believe they do), then this would be a great step forward for them.

And McNealy's challenge to IBM to open source db2 is silly too; sun makes no money from selling java licenses (duh, they're free), where as IBM does make money from db2.

Re:Given that, why aren't linux and perl fractured

You forget the fact that companies that have vested interests in killing Java *cough* a certain Seattle based company *cough* could use this against Java.

I'm NOT starting a flame war here - but Microsoft does not really consider Perl or Python to be a serious contender as Java.

What do you think really inspired Visual Studio .Net? Microsoft has everything to gain by killing it - it would only more people to use their platform.

Right now, Java gives people the freedom of platform - if in any way killing it or changing it in a way that makes it beneficial to MSFT, they WILL do it.

Re:Given that, why aren't linux and perl fractured

"And McNealy's challenge to IBM to open source db2 is silly too; sun makes no money from selling java licenses (duh, they're free), where as IBM does make money from db2."

Sun does make money from Java. They license certification tools so that people can claim 100% Pure Java Certified and use the java logo. They make money from licensing the source code, they make money from licensing distribution rights for the JRE and JDK.

While you can distribute the JRE, you can only do so if you aren distributing it for the purpose of running your application.

You cannot distribute the JDK unless you pay for that right.

Re:How can we fracture it?

Let's say there was a fork, Sun holds the trademark to the Java name so said fork could not promote itself as "Java." If it did, it would have a lawsuit on its hands that is a guaranteed loss.

If it forked, it would become some other language, and people could decide to use it or not based on its merits. However, those in the Java camp would know where to look for the Java they want.

Furthermore, example proves this point. We have languages like Perl, Python, Ruby and countless others that are doing just fine in the open source world.

Re:How can we fracture it?

"Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one."

Is that Sun's problem or the Distro's problem?

Someone who doesn't know enough to install the JDK on their computer on their own from a package that is already included in their distro (just not in the 'free' section) probably wouldn't be able to develop in it. If you like java, you can install it, you can use it.

Maybe the linux distributors should be a little more open regarding what programs they would like to include.

Look at sourceforge. The number of open source projects written with java is huge.

It's not sun that's going to lose out by not open sourcing java. I'm not trying to sound negative. People are deploying java apps on linux all the time. Especially web applications.

It seems like the OS community wants sun to do it out of principle. None of the arguments made really hold up in my opinion.

Re:How can we fracture it?

Java programs larger than "Hello World" have about a 25% chance of running on a default Linux system.

Personally, I think that sentence makes your post deserving of -1 Flamebait. The reason Java programs fail to run on a Linux system is that they were written by idiots who assume that

new File("c:\\");

will work on any machine. I've only had one serious issue with getting Java programs to run on Windows, OS X and Linux, and that is that there's no documented way of changing the default file encoding. I added an item to coding standards saying that file encodings must be specified for all file I/O and the problem went away. The GUI will also want testing to make sure it looks reasonable, but that's not a failure-to-run issue.

Re:How can we fracture it?

Because many distros will not ship [Jave because it it] non-free software by default. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

They refers to the distros that are so caught up in the OSS religion that they won't ship a useful and decent free (as in beer) language because it's not fee (as in liberty), right?

Re:How can we fracture it?

"they" are almost every distro out there. And "they" do not include Java for pretty good, license-related reasons.

And no, this is Sun:s problem, not the distributions. A good deal of people that would have been using Java for their applications are instead happily using Python, Perl, C/C++ or, rarely but increasingly often,even Mono/C# for their development. Those people were Sun's to loose, and they did.

Right now we have the situation that even Sun is doing all their GNOME contributions in C/C++, as Java is not acceptable as part of the core desktop at this time (neither is Mono/C#, of course - no need to start a flamewar here). In fact, we will likely see Python (and maybe Perl) accepted as core technologies for the desktop (for both GNOME and KDE) long before we see Java - and by then, it may be too late for Java no matter what happens. Of course, that is a problem for Sun (and for dedicated Java developers), not for the distros or for the general user/developer population.

Re:How can we fracture it?

You've never had to write code that compiles under multiple compilers for multiple platforms, have you?

One of the driving forces behind Java's evolution was the fragmentation of the C++ camp.

Re:How can we fracture it?

I also question the benefit to open source java. Microsoft Java? Maybe, but they built C# because Sun took them to task for violating their license, and creating a "write once, run on Microsoft" version. I don't really see any compelling arguments for making it open source. IBM, BlackBerry, and other java SDKs without an open source license, and there is a community process for submitting changes to the specs.

"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.

Hmmm... Now there's an idea I could get behind. Maybe. Although I'm not sure how much a database product would benefit from community involvement. IBM has already ported it to just about everything. The free (as in beer) aspect would probably kill off Oracle and SQL Server pretty quick, though.

Re:How can we fracture it?

I also question the benefit to open source java. Microsoft Java? Maybe, but they built C# because Sun took them to task for violating their license, and creating a "write once, run on Microsoft" version. I don't really see any compelling arguments for making it open source. IBM, BlackBerry, and other java SDKs without an open source license, and there is a community process for submitting changes to the specs.

It's not just about specs. Implementations matter. If Sun's reference implementation isn't open source, the language isn't really free.

I can understand Sun's initial reluctance to open-source Java years ago -- Microsoft would have (probably successfully) embraced and extended Java, as they indeed tried to do. At the time, the closed license was beneficial.

Here's the compelling reason for Sun to open-source Java now -- Microsoft no longer has an incentive to embrace and extend Java. They've done an end-run around the Java license by reimplementing a virtually identical language and calling it C# instead of Java. Microsoft will keep pushing C# over Java, and they're already successfully stealing away significant mindshare from Java. Microsoft has proven their ability to (illegally) leverage their monopoly position to acquire new markets. I hate to say it, but in the battle of C# vs. Java, the smart money is probably on C# unless something changes.

Making the Sun reference implementation completely open-source would change the rules of the game. Microsoft might try to subvert it again, but there really wouldn't be any point; C# does the job equally well. More importantly, the rest of the industry would embrace Java even more than it already has, and it could serve to steal mindshare back from C# despite Microsoft's monopoly advantage. This is a compelling reason to do it.

"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.

I have no doubt this remark was sarcastic on McNealy's part, but suppose IBM takes it seriously? If IBM wants Java open-sourced badly enough, would they consider making DB2 open-source as a sort of trade? If IBM responded with an offer to enter into a contract at Sun for both Java and DB2 to be open-sourced together (and conditionally on each other), would McNealy take IBM up on the offer? Or would he just find a new excuse to refuse to relinquish control over the code?

It seems that Sun still hasn't learned their lesson from the NeWS debacle of the late 80s. While NeWS was clearly superior technology at the time, X11 was free in every sense. And it mattered. NeWS fans (including me) could see the writing on the wall, and complained that Sun should make NeWS as free as X11. ("Open Source" wasn't a term coined yet, of course.) Of course, Sun refused, and NeWS died a slow and terrible death at the hands of an inferior (but free) competitor. Even now, Sun shows little interest in making NeWS free, when its value as an "asset" is zero. Will Sun maintain a similar deathgrip on Java until it too lands in the dustbins of history, while the world settles on C# instead of Java, as with X11 and NeWS?

Sun, learn from your mistakes. There was a time when Java's license prevented abuse by Microsoft, but that time has passed. C# is Microsoft's new approach to "embrace and extend" Java, and the only effective way to counter it is to make Java fully open-source now, before C# inexorably crushes Java. The writing is on the wall yet again -- don't let Java die the same lingering death that NeWS suffered!

Fearless Sun Leader pokes at IBM

from:

http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/25400-1.html [gcn.com]

"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM

Re:Fearless Sun Leader pokes at IBM

I would love to IBM put it's neck on the line by open sourcing one of there own "prized" products like DB2. Actually that would kick ass. That would show a great deal of committment and not just be playing lip service about open source.

OK, but you're ignoring his point. Presumably you (or whoever) is hassling Sun to open source Java but isn't hassling IBM to open source anything it invented. Yet, I guess this year/month/week, we like IBM (SCO seals that, in a way). But we're mad at Sun for not open-sourcing Java. But we can't say what, exactly, we will gain from open-source Java that we don't have now (other than the ability to fork or otherwise hassle Sun with dilution and increased risk of being MS-swamped).

So, someone please tell me what we are missing out on by not having Java source code?

Big mistake.

I believe he's making a big mistake. As an open sourced tool, I believe that some amazing solutions would show up for Java that will probably never appear with it being closed source.

Look at perl for example. Do you think it would be where it is today if it were closed source? It would probably be some hack that about 2 guys use. But no, it's on the standard distribution of just about any UNIX-like OS out there, and many websites use mod perl with Apache to get some great results (including /.)...

Imagine where Java would be if it were open sourced. I think that most desktop software could even be developed for Java and run the same on any platform. No more Microsoft monopoly. You could buy a program and run it on OS X, Linux, Windows, or whatever. How? By being open sourced, it would probably become so efficient and powerful that nobody would want to waste their time natively compiling stuff for this system or that.

Yeah man, he's making a big mistake.

Re:Big mistake.

some amazing solutions would show up for Java that will probably never appear with it being closed source.
like what?

...it's on the standard distribution of just about any UNIX-like OS out there
so is Java

You could buy a program and run it on OS X, Linux, Windows, or whatever.
you can do just that with any Java app today

I code in Java for a living. I don't think open-sourcing it or not has anything to do with Java's current problems in the marketplace. Just my 2 cents.

Re:Big mistake.

I code in Java for a living. I don't think open-sourcing it or not has anything to do with Java's current problems in the marketplace.

In fact, it would only make it worse - Opensource it and you will have serious issues with version control and compatibility.

As it is, getting enterprise level applications running together in Java is not an easy task - bring in more forks and incompatibility and you will kill the language.

Sometimes, standardisation through a central point of control can be a good thing.

If only you were right.

...it's on the standard distribution of just about any UNIX-like OS out there
so is Java

It sure is hard to come by a current Java implementation for my Alphas running Linux. I have a feeling that other CPU's also have the same problem. Open sourcing Java would help solve that issue.

Re:Big mistake.

People are naturally asking "What does open sourcing Java get us?"

My answer is "Java on the desktop", where it has been an abysmal failure. Yep, there's three or four applications you can point at that are the exception... now show me 20 or 30 common Java desktop applications.

Imagine Java + QT or Java + GTK. I'm a Python partisan and frankly pretty much hate Java, but you know, stick a decent, time-test GUI toolkit on it and I might consider developing with it in the future, especially in light of the other improvements being made to it.

(Being able to program in Java without making me gag would probably improve my employability long term, though I'm still running successfully with "if I never learn Java I'll never have to program in it" without limiting myself as much as you might think...)

Re:Big mistake.

Look at perl for example. Do you think it would be where it is today if it were closed source? It would probably be some hack that about 2 guys use.

Another poster already pointed out how java already meets all the criteria you posit as possibly attainable by java [only] were it open source. But I just wanted to point out that your post is wild speculation; you have zero knowledge about what Perl would be were it not-open source or what Java would be were it. As such, your post is devoid of any meaningful insight whatsoever, yet it attained +5 Insightful status before my very eyes.

I can only hope that meta-moderation repairs that; meanwhile no one has indicated any single (likely) benefit to Sun or Java programmers that will (likely) come from open-sourcing Java, without just staing this claim tautologically. Yet many, such as yourself, have strutted about empty arguments encouraging Sun to open Java source. I don't get it. Why?

Re:Big mistake.

Open sourcing Java is not a panacea.

I agree that ultimately it'll probably make it a better language, but it will take plenty of time for the benefits to realize themselves, and in the mean time, as the language get stagnant, it'll probably be eclipsed by C#. Look at Netscape/Mozilla for example. Open sourcing Navigator ultimately led to a better browser, but how long did it take before a version 1.0 of Mozilla was finally released? During that time, while Navigator was stuck in 4.x limbo, IE overtook it easily. Furthermore, despite Mozilla being open sourced, its evolution is guided closely by Mozilla.org. Java have a similar guiding entity, it's called JCP (Java Community Process). A board anyone can join and contribute to. Besides, Java's API's are clearly documented, and other companies can make a compatible JVM (IBM, Apple, and BEA all did). And the sources for the classes included with the JDK's are freely available.

Look at perl for example... But no, it's on the standard distribution of just about any UNIX-like OS out there, and many websites use mod perl with Apache to get some great results (including /.)...

This logic doesn't explain the tremendous growth Java has enjoyed on the server side. J2EE technologies are implemented widely on the Internet, and there are plenty of web applications (and tools) build using Java (Tomcat, Ant, etc.).

-B

Just like Windows XP & IE

It doesn't need to be open source to be good.

Java is Suns last trump card

Without having Java as an internal closed system, Sun will have nothing left that a competitor can't provide. Sun is grasping onto Java like a sailor in a wild storm; Everything Sun is planning rests on Java. I hope they can make something good out of it. Even though Sun is an old company that has only recently begun to change, it'd be sad to see them go the way of the dinosaurs. They're one of the old guard, along with Big Blue, so I for one hope they can stay afloat.

It is sad that they don't want to open up java, but really, in the end, it comes down to business strategy. And at this point in time, it just doesn't make good business sense for Sun to throw away their last trump card.

Re:Java is Suns last trump card

1) You can make your own java compiler.

2) You can make your own JVM.

3) You can make your own libraries.

4) Your java code can be open source.

What does making java "open source" mean? It means making the standard open. Why does the core java standard need to be open when you can write your own open source libraries? Sun already has a community process for adding features.

I know some distros and die hard GNU people dont like it just because its license but most people dont care about that and dont even ave a problem buying software when its warranted.

Don't let Sun die.

And to second your point, I think it is in the best interests of the community to NOT see Sun die. They are one of the last vendors of Unix left - if they die, do you forsee Redhat or Suse stepping up to the table?

By all means, ask for x86 support. But DON'T KILL SUN. Now is not the time to ask for Java to be open sourced. It would be a good thing, however, to extract from them, some promise that as Java evolves, some earlier version can be open-sourced.

McNealy can't see it because he's not looking.

From the GCN article:

He said that although he respected Raymond, he felt the advocate was off base in his letter and noted Sun's many years in managing technology development among multiple parties.

"We've been around the block many times on open interfaces, open systems implementation, compatibility. Nobody has more experience on community development," he said.

And most of those open interfaces and open systems have gone nowhere, because they weren't truly open standards. When was the last time you used Suntools? OpenLook? NeWS?

Sun has quite a history of inventing new interfaces, then abandoning them because competing open standards achieved more traction in the marketplace. If they're not careful, C# will do exactly that.

Re:McNealy can't see it because he's not looking.

The other side of that coin is NFS. Think about how that works & has worked under Linux as opposed to Samba which has to deal with the " standards compliance" of it's filesystem inventor.

And Sun has already said that NFSv4 will have all the APIs & design stuctures open for interoperability

A boatload of IPv4 & IPv6 code. Structures & design for journaling file systems. etc.

I could go on.

Sun, of any of the major vendors who are tarred, rightly or wrongly, with the non-FOSS brush are about the most standards compliant & interoperabily friendly company out there.

Re:McNealy can't see it because he's not looking.

Uhh -- what? How about: "when's the last time you used NFS? OpenOffice?"

Like it or not, Sun is a big contributor to open source.

What is Sun?

So once again the question comes up... Is Sun a hardware company or software company? They sure aren't doing hot in either arena...

How would it benifit Sun ?

How would opening the source up benefit Sun ? It would obviously benefit the open source community and give Sun their respect, but Sun is out to make profit, and even in the long run I don't see how they can make more money. Besides, Sun knows java best, granted, open source developers could make improvements but people are going to use java regardless. Only until a new bit-code type programming language with the cross-platforming capabilities of java and a substantial amount of users, will Sun consider releasing the source. Sun is out to make money, not win friends, and I don't think they will loose many customers because they aren't releasing their source.

Re:How would it benifit Sun ?

Here's the crux: what they're being asked to open source is something they make no money on ALREADY. They provide it for free (as in beer). It needs to be free (as in speech) so that it can ship in the default installs for all the Linux distributions. Ever since the fiaSCO, Linux distro providers have become even more vigilant about making sure software meets GPL compatibility requirements.

We like open source...but not THAT much!

In the other world, there's Novell who seems to be doing a lot of OSS-hugging lately. I believe SUSE's YAST is going open along with a few of Novell's very own formerly closed-source stuff. Sure, they may not be opening up the keys to the kingdom (not sure if they are or not) but at least they're visibly cooperating with the Open Source community.

SUN still contributes to OO.org stuff so we can't really rip them on that. However, they remain at the very least lukewarm to OSS. They offer Linux because their customers ask for it, they say. They package a Java Desktop where the word "Java" seems a bit out of place...I think banking on name recognition more than anything else. They killed off the cobalt servers. Just not very Open Source-friendly as far as their PR campaign seems to be going.

Open Source Java? A stern no is the answer. I guess they'll still need to hang on to something while the boat sinks. Might as well be a cup of strong hot coffee.

Some other Sun musings

Unix will be back. Really, it will! Everything is beautiful! Don't worry! Be happy! Customers will return to Solaris one day! After all, if schwartz said it, [newsforge.com] it must be true.

Schwartz, however, sees the fad of Linux wearing off in big businesses.

"There will be a transition back to Solaris," he said [theregister.co.uk]

and even scott is a believer:

The "fad will wear off, and big business will come back [techtarget.com] to solaris".

Sun, don't worry, everything is great. Everybody else should wake up and smell the java [newsforge.com].

This is good in a way

As much as I'd hate to admit it, this is probably a good thing.

We would probably end up having a dozen versions of Java out there, and various "java distributions" - and there would be no particular standard. There would be a pseudo-standard enforced by Sun, and say, IBM - but there is nothing to stop Microsoft to go ahead and make a non-standard version of it and popularize it.

Okay, now Java is not going to be Opensource - but does that preclude IBM contributing to Java in any way at all?

Re:This is good in a way

Just like there are dozens of incompatible versions of Python and Perl right?

There is something that is call historical momentium... if you show decent leadership at the start of an OSS project you most often won't be forked....

As long Sun didn't OS-it under a BSD license I doubt MS would touch it with a very long poll, doubley so now that they are pushing their own CShit.

Re:This is good in a way

There is something that is call historical momentium... if you show decent leadership at the start of an OSS project you most often won't be forked....


You won't be forked by Opensource folks - you maybe forked by corporates who benefit from killing Java or making it unusable.

Or restricting it to a select platform or two using popularity as a trump card. You know what am talking about here.

If not open source, how about a different license?

One of the big problems with Java is the license. Here are some issues that real people have faced:

1.) RedHat couldn't put a JVM in their desktop OS w/out including the Java license in anaconda and having the end user agree to it at install time. As a result, RedHat couldn't set up Netscape and Mozilla to run Java applets seamlessly and out of the box.

2.) FreeBSD couldn't include Sun's JDK in the ports tree out-of-the-box. An admin pays $$$ for cut CDs or spends time to download ISOs so that they don't have to do a network install. When they find go to build Java on FreeBSD they are told by the ports tree to go "agree to Sun's license and download the JDK from http://java.sun.com/blah/blah/blah". Not only is it annoying to have to download an extra component that isn't included on the ISO, it leaves a poor taste in the admins mouth for Java. And come on - admins are the last people developers want to irritate.

I can understand Sun's position with not open sourcing Java. Although relatively uninformed on the topic, I don't see any prevailing reason to make it open source - there are open source implementations of the JDK other than Sun's - go with them. But for cripes sake change the farking license.

It is a sad sad statement that I, as an enterprise java developer of 6 years, am unable to get applets to work appropriately on my Linux desktop.

Re:If not open source, how about a different licen

There are numerous licenses in existence that would allow Sun to maintain their closed source product that probably would not be against RedHat policy.

I think the crux of the issue with RedHat is that:
a.) Sun wants you to download Java only from Sun
b.) RedHat wants to redistribute Java via the RedHat end user license.

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't understand why Sun can't just let "other people" (RedHat, FreeBSD, etc) distributed their binary code without checking in at Sun.com first.

As a java developer who earns an income based upon Java's success, I really want to see Java succeed on the desktop because it opens up more development avenues for me and other java developers. And I think that Sun has an interest in java succeeding on the desktop as well (their Java Desktop would seem to indicate this). With technologies like Flash that are so nice looking, so easy to install, and lots of times already integrated on your platform - you would think that Sun would be doing __everything_in_its_power__ to help foster the growth of java on the desktop.

I would think Java would be out there lobbying Dell and Compaq pumping them to install WebStart on their desktops. Or put in an up-to-date JRE into IE. Or . . . put in a stinking applet viewer into the Mozilla that ships with the Linux distro most commodity users install.

But they don't. Instead they sit back, come up with a dozen or so mime-types that represent a Java Applet, make it prohibitively difficult to install the correct .so file into your browser (rarely do the already compiled .so files line up with your browser version), put out a dozen or so different sub releases (JDK 1.4.2_03 build 13? come on...), and then watch with confused looks on their faces as Flash takes over the world of client side GUI development.

Come on Sun. Wake up! I want java to succeed on the desktop as much as you do. You guys clearly haven't figured out how to make Java pervasive - maybe us assclowns at home can figure it out. Just give up the EULA rights to Java so that one of us can figure out how to do, patch it into a vanilla distro (like Fedora), and let you reach the end users you've failed to reach since you came up with applets years ago.

There's nothing like knowing a solvable problem exists that you can't even begin to troubleshoot because some asshat lawyer somewhere wants you to sign their EULA instead of the one from another company (which is frequently the same stinking one).

Good

Why do people think making something Open Source is unanimously good? Indeed, in this case I think Open Sourc-ing Java would be a bad move. Java has a slew of sattelite ecosystems and things that are portrayed as "technologies" themselves. I think Java desperately needs a backbone on which those entites can rely on for stability. In fact I think this is why Java is a little too popular. Now days you cannot get a Java project without being required know J2EE, JNDI, JABC, JDEF, JJJ, and fifteen other acronyms. The whole thing has become an exercise in marketing. Now factor in the coup de gras of different permutations created by Open Source people and you're thuroughly confusing the situation.

Incedentally, isn't it strange how the Java API can evolve so much and yet despite the holes in POSIX no one has even considered changing it.

Well if they're going to be that way about Java

Let's all use .net, instead!

That'll show them.

Note for the sarcasm-impaired: Move along, now.

Correction...

...no Open-Source SUN Java.

People being impatient have already generated GCJ [gnu.org] and Kaffe [kaffe.org] working on open-source implementations of Java. Neither are yet as complete as the 'full' Java, but are in progress.

Is there a 'standard' for the Java language itself, in the same way that there is for "C#"? If not, could it be because Sun doesn't want to make it easier for Open-Source folks to create a complete implementation?...

Business Case for Open Sourcing Java?

What is the business case for Sun open sourcing Java? Try as I might, I can't think of any strong reasons for it.

One might argue that open sourcing the JVM and/or the Java standard libraries might be useful to allow people to create their own distributions for their specific platform, rather than doing a complete rewrite. I can see that being useful for platforms that aren't a priority for Sun.

The question is, though how would Sun make money from any of this (mind you, I doubt they make any money from it right now). Can anyone explain how Sun could benefit from open sourcing Java?

Re:Business Case for Open Sourcing Java?

I think the one major benefit Sun would realize is *relevance* within the Linux community. OpenOffice is fully extensible via Java. What if the Linux desktops were as well? Java *should* be our answer to .net, and probably would be, if Java were opened. Since Java won't be opened, its going to be necessary to design and implement a competing solution. Is that what Sun needs? More competition?

Re:Business Case for Open Sourcing Java?

The business case is that inviting more people to participate as an open source project will expedite its development permitting it to be more competitive. The open source advocates argue development will be faster, higher quality, and reach more platforms.

I personally wasn't aware of the degree to which this was an issue until I installed FreeBSD. Sun doesn't supply a native JVM for it, and it's current license puts a lot of restrictions complicating the optimization of a free JVM for FreeBSD.

You can get it running, but you have to jump through hoops, agreeing to Sun's source license, and then downloading it from Sun's site before you can compile a version for your PC. After you apply patches created by someone that worked very hard to get the thing to run on your OS, the compile process takes a long time.

The worst part, though, is that it is slow on FreeBSD compared to other operating systems running on the same hardware. Very little can be done until Sun truly open sources Java.

The primary solution people have taken to is creating patches to solve the problems Sun's code has running on different platforms. This has several drawbacks. One is that the patches take time to develop, creating a lag in versions. The second is that the patched versions rarely get true testing, so you can only hope it works with your application, and that something unexpected doesn't surprise you down the road. Most people creating these patches don't have access to Sun's highly priced compatibility test suite.

The irony is that the compatibility Sun want's to maintain is eroded already by Sun's reluctance to both open source Java and make the test suite more accessible. This decision also decreases the platforms that Java can run on, the opposite of one of Sun's stated goals.

A lot of people take it for granted when they install a pre-compiled JVM downloaded from Sun's website on one of the operating systems Sun happens to support. Let me know, please, when Sun releases a FreeBSD JVM, and solves problems the OpenBSD people have had getting it to run correctly.

If Sun Microsystems suddenly dies...

If Sun suddenly dies (as many have been doing in the industry), who is left to maintain the code?

Don't say "Oh that won't happen." We've heard that before -- and it did. The question now is alot of their code "who's going to maintain/support it?"

Re:If Sun Microsystems suddenly dies...

If Sun suddenly dies (as many have been doing in the industry), who is left to maintain the code?

Likely, someone would buy the company and all of its assets, seeing a very profitable future in owning the rights to a popular language, OS, and hardware platform.

Don't say "Oh that won't happen." We've heard that before -- and it did.

FUD and balderdash. People have been waiting for Sun to fail for 20 years. They haven't. Why not? Because they're not as stupid as people think. They do stay behind the curve, but they're always savvy enough to catch up without getting left behind.

There is ZERO evidence of Sun failing in the forseable future. Even in that imaginary situation, someone would come in and buy the assets. FUD.

One big benefit

I've been working in an all-Java shop for close to 5 years now. One of the big headaches with Sun is the unenthusiastic response to some of the more obscure problems/bugs in the core API (especially around socket handling from what I've seen). Sun gives them low priority because they only affect sophisticated applications (touching rarely used parts of the API) where workarounds might be available. Man, there's a pointless stack trace dump in the HTML parser that's been annoyimg me for at LEAST 3 years. Some of these bugs have literally been out there for years. That would never fly in the open source community.

Of course, I can see their point of view also. Java is Sun's creation and giving it away does lose them a shiny badge of honor, since they wouldn't be able to market Java success as their own. And, open source APIs tend to advance so quickly that not-so-old APIs become obsoleted and incompatible. Open sourcers tend to be up to date with versioning, but this can become a big problem in corporate settings where a customer demands Java version X.1 for their environment, but your product ships with Java version X.2 (or vice versa). Java has essentially been backwards compatible since it's inception, disregarding the new classes.

Fair Enough

I can't really see what Sun has to gain from open-sourcing Java either.

The open-source community is more than capable of building it's own Java clone e.g. Kaffe and supporting Java technologies e.g. gcj if it wants to, and Sun have every right to hold onto their Java implementation, if they feel it best suits their business goals.

I know I am quite happy using the Java packages provided by Sun and IBM, and agree with McNealy in that IBM should shut their mouth about open source Java unless they are prepared to open source their technologies as well.

Sun is most likely concerned, and rightly so, about the prospect of IBM pulling an 'Eclipse' on the core JVM.

IBM is a ruthless, anti-competitive mega-corporation, and it is easy to forget that in light of the SCO debacle etc., where they are portrayed as the good guys.

I dont think the community at large has any real stake in this particular battle - The Java standards are open, we are free to implement them in whatever way we see fit. If you want to see open source Java, then support the open source Java efforts like Kaffe, and leave Sun alone.

Normally, i'm quite a Sun-detractor, but I think in this case, they are being unfairly beaten up on about an issue that is quite clearly a non-issue.

If you want Java you can get it for free, and if you want to implement a VM that runs Java code, you are also free to do that, supported by detailed information and specification by Sun.

I doubt most of the people baying for blood over this issue would have any interest in improving Java were it to be released as open source, and it's not like there arent plenty of existant open source Java-related projects that couldn't do with your help anyway.

Another MS Reason

One reason not to open source Java is that MS could simply appropriate it, develop and eventually patent a bastardized version that would work only with MS software. The MS market share monopoly would then guarantee the end of "Java as we know it." And Sun could not do a thing about it.

Remember the recent lawsuit over this exact issue of MS "extensions" of Java? In January 2001 MS settled that suit. Companies don't settle suits they're likely to win. Making Java open source would simply void the settlement. Check out this site: http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/

McNealy is a wise CEO not to give the competition the tools to destroy his company.

Scott, wake-up!

"We're trying to understand what problem does it solve that is not already solved."

So, I guess the .NET C# competition is already contained by, by, by what?

Someone else has provided links to the discussion from Havoc Pennington on the future of the Linux desktop. Havoc is discussing the alternatives. And none is very satisfactory. Open-Sourcing Java would have a catalystic effect and would solve OUR problem. But, maybe Scott just doesn't care because he is thinking he has finally found a way to dominate the desktop market and we are supposed to sit-down, wait, see and applaude!

Huh? There's a proprietary Java?

Is it some kind of private fork of GCJ [gnu.org]? Or does it work like Kaffe [kaffe.org]?
I'm confused.

I guess you could reverse-engineer kissme [sourceforge.net] or SableVM [sablevm.org], if you had to... but why bother making or using a proprietary JVM, when there are so many good (and improving!) free ones?

Why does anyone *care*?

Okay, look. There just isn't any point to having an open source Sun JVM.

* The specs are open (the big problem with MS is that they work hard to make it a pain in the ass for anyone to make compatible software).

* The specs are all that should be needed. There is *tons* of open source software out there that is RFC-compliant. Guess what? The RFCs don't come with free, public domain reference implementations. They just describe a standard. For *decades*, people have been quite happy with a nice open standard. Who needs the source?

* Sun's JVM is good, but not great. There are lots of people working on JVMs out there -- there is *no lack* of open source JVMs. There must be at least thirty JVMs out there, not counting variations produced by a single company. AFAIK, IBM's JVM is the highest-performance thing out there (for Linux at least) and if we're demanding that something be open-sourced based on the fact that it's really good, I'd like to see IBM open-source theirs.

* It works fine. We have had no problems with the current system. Sun has not tried to leverage their JVM to screw people over, and I don't see how or why they'd do so in the future.

* There is no good alternative. What are people going to threaten Sun with, switching to .NET? To a barely-operable Mono or the much-hated Microsoft? I don't think so.

* There is a good set of tools to support Java out there.

* There are open-source alternatives that will probably take over eventually anyway. GCJ is slowly moving along. Why, aside from some kind of symbolism, do people care about using Sun's JVM? Just let GCJ get up to speed and get nice native-code Java builds. Instead of trying to beg for favors from Sun, why not work on GCJ? Sun probably spent more developing the language, docs, and marketing Java than they do developing their particular JVM implementation, anyway.

Given a choice between having Sun's JVM open source or not...yeah, sure, I'd prefer to have it open source. But if I really can't stand using a closed one, I can download Kaffe or one of the other JVMs on freshmeat. I'm not going to avoid Java because one JVM happens to be closed-source. If I avoid Java, it would be for high resource usage and issues with the language, not for some silly political issue.

Reason to use Java?

Except for some extreme cases (cell phones, embedded hardware, etc) where Python won't do, why would you want to use Java where Python applies?

Python is a far more productive language than Java, even if it executes slower. For the small parts of code where execution performance is an issue, you can use Pyrex or C or hell, even Java. But why use Java for the larger part of the program?
Also note the Python VM is smaller, lighter and starts up more quickly.

Even in terms of portability/compatibility, it seems that Python is better on many platforms (Windows, GNU, and a few more).

Answer Consistent with McNealy's Past Behavior

This naswer from McNealy should surprise no one. McNealy has never been a fan of or actively cooperated with any initiative that didn't give Sun a proprietary edge and hopefully, some control.

Do people remember the "Open SPARC" fiasco. SPARC was going to be open. Anyone could build systems that were compatible and run Sun's OS. Well, such systems got built. Resellers started carrying the systems because they were eqyual to SUn's and cheaper. McNealy closed done the initiative.

Remember how Sun fought against Motif? It did everything it could to kill it (except share its technology) and then "discoverd" and adopted Motif when more than 50% of its customers had switched to Motif, rejected Sun's solution and were demanding Sun provide support.

Remember how Sun's attemp to control UNIX, with its AT&T deal forced its competitors to form the Open Software Foundation and actually cooperate (for a while).

Remember that Sun built an x86 verison of its OS and was selling it. As the Intel platform became a serious server challenge to Sun's proprietary hardware, Sun dropped the product.

Get the idea? Expect no cooperation from McNealy. And, if he ever seecooperating, be VERY, VERY, VERY suspicious.

Java more open than Linux...

Java currently has several core implementations

Sun, Blackdown (OSS), IBM

J2EE has several implementations

SAP, Oracle, IBM, Sun, JBoss(OSS), BEA etc

J2ME has several implementations

Sun, SavaJE etc etc

How come there is only one Linux Kernel that is recognised ? Is it because the JCP with its reference implementations and verification kits creates a more open environment than Linux can hope to.

Lets put it this way... why is 802.11b/g etc successful ? Because its open source, or because there is an OPEN STANDARD with defined compliance kits ?

Java is like 802.11 & Ethernet... a success by being an Open Standard. Its only the implementations that should be OSS, like Blackdown and JBoss already are.

This is bad because...

I see many many comments saying that making Java open source would be a bad idea, that people can get a JVM for free (as in beer) now - whats the problem? Damn commie GNU hippies wanting everything for free, yada yada.

Well, let me put it this way:

Yes, there are existing efforts at making a Free Software JVM/Java implementation - notably GCJ and Kaffe - and it is perfectly legal to do so. However, the big problem is reimplementing the whole Java API. Java has probably one of the biggest unified API's ever. Creating a compatible and stable implementation is not only a massive job, but also such an effort will be forever playing catch up! GNU Classpath [classpath.org] is an admirable effort, relied upon by pretty much every GPL Java implementation, but just look at all the core stuff missing from the API!

If Sun GPL'd all its API, we could have a functional 100% free Java implementation right now, and they could still keep their own JVM tech proprietary, maybe sell it as a high performance option or something. Also, think of the improvements and bugfixes you'd get with thousands of people hacking on the class libraries?

As for forking the language, I think Sun could use its existing Community infrastructure to help tie development together and prevent this. Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, etc are all open languages, yet forking is not a problem with them! As for Microsoft somehow doing evil stuff with Java - they have C# doing a good enough job at eroding Java already!

Another advantage to opening Java would be that distributions could include it in the base install. As it stands, if you want to run Sun's JVM, you have to go to their website seperately and download it. Even their download procedure itself can be a pain (especially on a server)!

Other people have blamed distros themselves for "religious" attitudes, but the fact is they simply aren't allowed to distribute JVMs, without at least adding all kinds of EULAs etc to the installer.

In my opinion Sun should:

• Preferably GPL the API
• At very least allow binary distribution by distros

If Sun opened it up, Java could become the base language of GNOME as detailed here [ometer.com]. Think of how cool it would be to use a well established, modern language to write GNOME apps? And Sun would get even more of a foothold with their language.

Re:Can't you see?

Python, Perl, Ruby, gcc, Gnome, KDE, the Linux kernel, GNU tools, etc.

Oh yeah, going nowhere because the Free and open source development model has stifled development.

Java Applets?

How does disabling java in your browser more secure? Last I checked Java Applets are in a sandbox and cannot hurt the system.