Sun to Change Java License for Linux 226
daria42 writes "It looks like the days of downloading Java every time you re-install a Linux box may be at an end. Reports are trickling in that Sun plans to alter the Java license to make it easier to bundle the JRE with Linux. From the article: 'Sun has faced calls several times to open-source Java, which advocates say would foster innovative open-source development. The company has resisted formally open-sourcing all of the Java software, but it has dramatically changed the development process around Java and changed licenses to make it easier to see Java source code.'"
Hard.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hard.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hard.. (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have open source Java (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are areas where the specs need improvement to get closer to the "Write Once Run Anywhere" goal, by all means complain about those areas.
We want multiple competing implementations, both open and proprietary. That said, I could see Sun open sourcing the Java libraries - at least the Java parts. The SDK comes with Sun source for the publically visible parts of libraries. However, the licence precludes using that source in an open source VM. Instead, the GNU classpath project has to rewrite them from the spec.
Keeping the Sun VM proprietary but opensourcing the libraries seems like a good compromise between maximum interoperability and competition.
Limits? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, it's a shame it seems they're only going to include the JRE. Nice and easy for linux users to run java programs. Shame they won't be able to write any...
Well I do declare! (as grandma said) (Score:4, Insightful)
Java, due to MS's efforts to subvert it, is probably the hardest to free up, but this is a good, workmanlike step in the right direction.
--dave
Re:We already have open source Java (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We already have open source Java (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly why it'll never happen. The giant Java library ensures that, even with a 100% compatible JVM, most Java applications will only run on the Sun runtime. (Especially applications that use "sun.*" or "com.sun.*" packages in open defiance of Sun themselves saying not to do that. But that's beside the point.)
Sun learned from their experience with Microsoft. When Microsoft had their own JVM implementation, Microsoft added various extra libraries and functionality to their runtime that Sun was missing. Sun responded by sueing, and forcing Microsoft to remove their JVM from Windows. (And then Sun responded to that by sueing Microsoft for removing their JVM from Windows...)
By having a massive and hard to implement class library, Sun ensures that anyone else trying to create a compatible Java runtime will always be playing catch-up. They'll never be able to be 100% compatible with the "latest and greatest" Java runtime.
And that's just the way Sun wants it - they're able to keep control of Java that way. Open sourcing the libraries would cause them to lose that control. And that's why it'll never happen.
(It's worth noting that the source for all the classes that appear in java.* and javax.* are, indeed, available with the Sun JDK. However, the license prevents doing anything useful with them, and much of those classes rely on large amounts of code implemented in com.sun.* or sun.* packages, for which the source is NOT available.)
foster? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there are so few innovative open source java projects right now? Heck, I can hardly keep track.
Leaving aside the politics of open source, and the "I can't play with your toys" argument, the main issue here seems to be the license incompatability that keeps Java from being bundled with the 267 different Linux distributions.
If people want to be innovative, how about working to unify the basic functionality of all those distributions, specifically one common, simple way that works on all distributions and architectures to install 3rd party packages, like, say, Java?
ObMetaDig: And besides, why do you care? Every time I see java on /., the whole thread seems to be "it's slow / no it isn't / GC sucks / no it doesn't / .NET rules / no it doesn't"
Re:We already have open source Java (Score:2, Insightful)
Run-time, not development tools (Score:3, Insightful)
If they allowed redistribution of JDK compiler and libraries, we'd be making progress.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re:But what about Windows? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a dangerous game to play - at what point does Microsoft stop supporting their customers for the sake of their business strategy? Some will say that that time came long ago, and that it is an implicit sign of anti-competetive, monopolistic practices. I disagree - as some could claim that Java is simply not appropriate for most users, and if it is required, then the user may install it.
I think Microsoft's lack of proper open document support, as required by some local laws, is a much more glaring example of Microsoft's overt anti-commerse behaviours.
64-bit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well I do declare! (as grandma said) (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun engineers, on the other hand, arguably agree with your desire to move to free reference implemntation, and in the short term, to fewer restrictions on the JRE.
--dave
Re:We already have open source Java (Score:3, Insightful)
* A standard which is well defined, whose license can not be arbitrarily terminated and is provided to everybody free of charge or at a reasonable cost. (This is the most important one)
* An open sourced reference implementation of that standard, prefereably released under the BSD licence so anybody can extend it. (This is nice but not crucial)
* An open standards process. (If the standard is stable and well written, this is not all that important)
Sun is doing the first but is avoid doing the second by giving the strawman argument that it would somehow imply the third.
Re:Well I do declare! (as grandma said) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:whocares (Score:1, Insightful)
Why do you care what he cares? Furthermore, how can you justify Java on Linux? Java isn't needed, it's not Free or open source, and compiling it is a pain in the ass. Why should Linux users use a proprietary language born out of a greedy corporation when there are better FOSS alternatives available?
Why not dual-license like OpenOffice.org? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't think that forks would be a big problem either, as everyone would likely stick to Sun's JDK by default. I certainly haven't run into IBM's JVM very often and one needs to look no further than Mozilla, OpenOffice.org and Qt for evidence that dual-licensing doesn't necessarily lead to uncontrolled forks.
The truly bizarre thing to me is that this hasn't already happened. It's not like Sun is trying to keep Java sources secret. They've already exposed them to the world with their fairly liberal research license.
Mayber things will change. I'm reminded of Eric Sink's comment on Slashdot years ago regarding open sourcing OOo:
"The only glimmer of hope has been Sun, which seems to have a practice of being smart during the even-numbered years and downright silly during the odd-numbered ones."
Re:We already have open source Java (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wish Java was more like CPAN (Score:2, Insightful)
Regards,
Steve
Re:We already have open source Java (Score:5, Insightful)
MS added classes to the java.* package hierarchy, in contravention to the terms of their licence. That's why Sun sued. Had MS put their classes in a com.microsoft package hierarchy like you're supposed to, Sun wouldn't have cared (or had a leg to stand on).
The restriction was/is in the licence to prevent exactly what started to happen - people started using the classes, and thus were writing code that could only run on MS's VM, which is completely against the core Java ethos of "write once, run anywhere". (Ok, so in practice that's often easier said than done, but this was threatening to make it completely impossible)
For what it's worth, MS didn't have to stop shipping a VM with Windows; they just had to stop shipping their non-compliant VM. They were perfectly at liberty to remove the offending classes and continue developing a compliant VM. Instead they chose not to do so, shifting their efforts to
Especially applications that use "sun.*" or "com.sun.*" packages in open defiance of Sun themselves saying not to do that.
That's a really dumb thing to do if you care about cross-release compatibility. There's no guarantee whatsoever that classes that are present in one release will be present in the next.
Re:Well I do declare! (as grandma said) (Score:3, Insightful)
and no, im not a sun fanboi, but i am primarily a j2ee developer.
Re:I'd Be Happy (Score:1, Insightful)
Might want to read up on Java 1.6 as I believe both of these issues have been solved.
Re:But what about Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen Win32 apps consuming 150Mb of RAM.
If Sun were to open source Java it could open the door to different, better JVMs that might even be able to spoof itself as "Sun JRE" for the myriad of poorly written Java apps that refuse to run on anything else.
Re:Hard.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hard.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Well yes, the lazy packagers at Red Hat, SuSE, on the Fedora project, etc... It doesn't help that you can do something if none of the official packages actually do it.
Debian is the same way, though it provides a (rather hard to use) workaround of "fake" packages.
BSD did things the right way, and Gentoo was wise to pick it up.
Re:Why is the modification required? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We already have open source Java (Score:3, Insightful)
apt-get install java-package
fakeroot make-jpkg jdk-1_5_0_06-linux-i586.bin
sudo dpkg -i sun-j2sdk1.5_1.5.0+06_i386.deb
If this took you a whole hour, you are in BIG trouble my friend
Re:But what about Windows? (Score:2, Insightful)
No wonder the installer refused to continue. In fact, it's a small miracle that LaTTe (a result of a research project, apparently) was able to start it in the first place, as it seems to implement only a small subset of Java 1.1 features rendering it totally unusable for running anything real - even when Java 1.1 was the latest release. Java 1.2 was released eight years ago.
I've never quite understood why people seem to think that open sourcing Java would magically solve all the problems. For example, memory usage and relatively slow GUI performance seem to be one of the major gripes. Does someone really think that a bunch of open source coders who have never seen the sources before would be able to improve it in any reasonable time if the engineers at Sun cannot?
And how many (smart) OS coders would actually care?
However, fixing the relatively small bugs and annoyances in the standard Java libraries is certainly something that could be done by the 'community', as Sun seems to be notoriously slow in fixing some of the bugs..
Re:We already have open source Java (Score:4, Insightful)
As a former CS student *and* instructor, take my advice: run away from Java as fast as you can. I'm not saying it's a bad langage/environment or doesn't serve some audiences very well. But Java's like cigarettes, starting on them too early stunts your growth.
CS students need to learn as many different programming approaches and concepts as they can. Procedural languages (C et al), iterative (generators, Python/Ruby), functional (lisp), declarative (prolog), message passing, object oriented, generic programming, closures, static vs dynamic typing, etc. Breadth of exposure to different approaches is crucial to knowing what approach to take with real-world problems. This should be coupled with a depth of understanding of what the system does 'under the covers' at each level. It makes all the difference in the world when facing unexpected problems and differentiates a code monkey from an engineer.
Unfortunately Java covers only a couple of these areas and none of them particularly well. Standardizing classes on Java is one of the worst things a CS dept can do. If you're stuck in this boat, all I can suggest is play around with other languages every chance you get.