Sun to Release Java Source Code

pete314 writes "After resisting for years, Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz at JavaOne this morning said that he will release the source code for Java. The company is asking developers to provide feedback on how to best get there and prevent forking and fragmentation."

Re:GPL'ing java would be bad...

[Maxmin]

every project that used it would also have to be GPL'd because at runtime everything links to its runtime environment.

Really? You're saying that for applications which link to the Java class libraries, they'll have to be GPL'd as well? I thought that the GPL had an exception for "links-to" versus "extends" or "based-upon."

How? Three words:

[caudron]

General Public License [gnu.org]

Seriously, there's a reason it's so popular. It ensures that noone can hijack the project and the source code will be legitimately free. You will make the most people happy with your decision if you go that route. Anything else will be seen as hedging your bets.

Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]

Re:Less talkin' more openin'

[BrainInAJar]

More likely, Sun will make the source CDDL [sun.com] like the rest of their free-software (and hardware [sun.com] :) ) offerings

Re:Misleading Headline

[DragonWriter]

But they DO care about IBM or Microsoft creating a VM that advertises compatbility, but actually pulls the bait-and-switch routine.

One way to manage that risk might be to pull a page from the (oddly enough) pen & paper RPG world -- when Wizards of the Coast adapted the open source idea to those kind of games by releasing the core of D&D/3e under its Open Gaming License as the d20 System Reference Document, it faced similar concerns, so its content licenses requires surrendering rights that the user would otherwise have to, e.g., nominative fair use of trademarks, so that while you can make derivative works, you can't (except by complying with a more restrictive trademark license) advertise or promote them using "product identity" associated with D&D or the d20 System. Applying the same idea back to software wouldn't be that hard. OTOH, there is a limited degree to which you can exercise control over OSS -- that's rather the point.

Re:The Media Is Retarded

[magicjava]

Well, if those products are already out there and already open source, how can the OSS flag-wavers claim that Java can't be open-sourced?

How quickly people forget what Microsoft tried to do to Java. The only thing that saved Java was it license agreement.

Re:You want to prevent forking?

[nuzak]

> Making Java open source, in the sense of a GPL or similar license, will kill Java.

Then it deserves to die. This is not Uncle Joe-Bob's job going south to NAFTA, so what on earth inspires such protectionist claptrap for Java's sake? This is code. Evolve or die.

Microsoft has .NET and doesn't give a fig about being kicked around by the Java crowd anymore. There's even IKVM for when you still want Java. As for IBM, what was their unpardonable crime? Writing a new toolkit? That they didn't gobble down the dog's breakfast that was Swing and demand seconds?

Why is Linux forking considered a bad thing?

[Richard Steiner]

The freedom to fork the Linux kernel has resulted in varieties of Linux running on all sorts of platforms, including many that that the mainstream kernel development team has absolutely no interest in.

That's the beauty of being able to fork the code -- people can use it as the basis for scratching their own itch.

The freedom to fork Linux distributions has resulted in something that most markets identify as "competition", something which the x86 desktop OS market hasn't seen in some time.

In spite of Sun's touching concerns, this can actually be a healthy situation, and usually is.

Re:How to prevent forking and fragmentation

[gronofer]

I think this concern is outdated. Now that Microsoft have .NET they are hardly likely to put much effort into Java.

I think even at the time such problems could have been avoided by releasing Java with a GPL licence. Most likely Microsoft simply wouldn't have touched it on those terms. Any changes they made would have been available to anyone in any case. Even if the "market decided" to prefer Microsoft's version over Sun's, it's would hardly have been the end of Java.

Now with a dominant .NET on the other hand, what would be Sun's position in the desktop computing world? The supplier of a browser plugin for use by a few legacy web games.

Re:Open Source? Nah...

[neurojab]

Sure, it could be nice, but do you really think that a great number of amazing programmers would eagerly step up and immediately start to maintain and improve Java? And in that doing a better job than Sun & JCP is doing right now? Don't think so...

Absolutely. We're not just talking about volunteers here. There are a lot of companies out there with a lot invested in Java. I'm sure they would love to have the opportunity to improve the core platform. Sun would still be involved in the maintenance, no doubt, so you'd be giving the cream of the crop of software engineers the ability to improve the platform, instead of a select few.

My case in point; At last year's JavaOne, there was a speaker (can't remember his name) that went into an insane level of detail on problems with finalizers, and he didn't work for Sun. If you gave him a swat at fixing the problem, it would just be taken care of, instead of being something that programmers have to "watch out for".

But Open Source Java? Nah... Not really needed.
I disagree 100%. Not going open source means you lose the inherent benefits of that model. Sure, Java is already "good", but there are thousands of ways to improve it (it's still catching up to SmallTalk in many ways). Why not let the interested parties do so?

GNU Classpath

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for Sun, Java will be Open Source with or without them. GNU Classpath [gnu.org] is already mostly Java 1.4 compliant [kaffe.org].

They basically have a choice. They can either make the Sun JVM the defacto JVM now by complying with open source demands, or they can be the stodgy corporate-only JVM while everyone else uses GNU Classpath. Even by fixing the Sun JVM license the people working on GNU Classpath aren't going to stop. They want a GNU, true open source alternative. Do we need any reminder on how the UNIX / Linux battle played out?

So like the Sun execs have said, it is not whether the JVM will be open source. It is HOW it will be. Will it be Sun or GNU Classpath in 5 years? Clearly, Sun realized this and is scrambling to make it happen before it is too late and a thriving community leaves them in the dust like with Solaris v Linux.

Re:Misleading Headline

[Decaff]

OTOH you could view it like this:

Sun doesn't support Java on Linux. Open sourcers complain. Now, they do, thanks to open sourcers complaining.

Sun didn't support Java on Linux because of open source pressure. They supported it because Linux was very successful commercially and so needed an implementation of the primary commercial development language - Java.

Sun doesn't support Java on Linux as a tier-1 platform. Open sourcers complain. Now, they do, thanks to open sourcers complaining.

Which is complete nonsense. Sun have supported Java on Linux as a primary platform for a very long time.

Sun doesn't release source code for Java. Open sourcers complain. Now, they do, thanks to open sourcers copmlaining.

You need to have a far better understanding of Linux and Java history.

I really don't think you understand how little open source matters in this respect. Java is already the number one development language in almost all areas of development - open source, server side, commercial application development. Sun has open sourced more lines of code in the past year than any other organisation - the entire Solaris codebase, and now they are doing this for Java. However, unless they deliver the entire source code as GPL directly to Richard Stallman, along with a grovelling apology for ever having doubted the true open source faith, some people will never be satisfied!