Red Hat Not Satisfied with Sun's New Java License 338
twofish writes "According to a Register article Sun Microsystems' new GNU/Linux-friendly Java license does not go far enough for Red Hat. Brian Stevens, Red Hat CTO, says Sun should have open-sourced Java instead. The new license does have the support of Canonical (main Ubuntu sponsor), Gentoo and Debian." From the article: "He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project, to bring affordable computing to children in developing nations. Negroponte wants only open source software on the machines, according to Red Hat, which is a member of the project."
That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:5, Insightful)
means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PC's
to children in developing nations is a bit of a cheap shot. The way it is stated, it makes Sun look
like some sort of terrible ogre, that is denying children access to computers, when it is the program
creator that does not allow Java on the laptops.
It is similar to the argument people make saying "corporations that make genetically modified food
are causing people in Africa to starve", in countries that forbid the import of genetically modified
food. The policy, not the companies making the food, are what is causing the lack of that particular
food to be used.
Don't get me wrong, it would be great if Sun made Java open source, but what they have now is not evil.
The software is free as in beer to use, and as such would add no more cost to the laptops, if installed, it would just conflict
with the philosophy of the program's founder.
Also, if you want to write your own JVM, Sun has written books [sun.com] to let you do just that.
It is not an easy project, it is similar to JBoss in complexity, but JBoss was written. If the CTO at
RedHat was that concerned about Java not being on the laptops, he could have part of his company work
on an open source JVM implementation. That company has a lot of resources, and would be more able
to manage a project of that complexity than several freelance developers in their free time.
not satisfied with what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"No date has been set for open sourcing Java but Sun is anxious to get more developers involved in the JCP and using NetBeans to get their feedback."
What's this bonehead complaining about?
Whose fault is it if it can't be used? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then that's Negroponte's problem, not Sun's. There's nothing in Sun's license that would prevent someone from bundling the JVM with whatever hardware you please.
Sun is a Business... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honesty? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. It's a bit vindictive to say "Sun is preventing kids from running Java", when there is nothing preventing them from freely distributing Java with every kid's laptop, other than their open source only rule that was arbitrarily made by themselves.
From TFA:
Negroponte wants only open source software on the machines, according to Red Hat, which is a member of the project
You can't always have your cake and eat it too. How about a compromise? Only open-source where possible, but free as in beer is OK if there is no better open-source alternative. This would allow people to use a mostly free OS, but still use quality closed-source yet free as in beer software like Java.
Sadly, the Linux community is sometimes blinded by zealotry in cases like this.
I seriously doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
If Java is to run on the OLPC computer, it needs a smaller, simpler implementation. Sun provides all information neccessary to build one. It's up to Red Hat or any one other than them to make it.
And, BTW, teaching Java to kids?! What do you want? To scare them away?
NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would you want java on there anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, I know why, but it's going to run like shit. I'm not saying that Java programs are slow or anything, but running Java on top of your OS is just adding weight and complexity, and we're talking about systems with extremely minimal specifications anyway. The machines don't need to run every program out there and Java on the web (as transmitted to browsers) is likely losing importance what with the whole AJAX thing.
Just the windows install for the latest JRE is 7.1 MB. That's the compressed package. It probably blows up to be twice that size. Java also has some noticable memory consumption overhead. Is it worth it on more capable systems? Sure. Is it worth it on this little toy computer? Hell no.
Money. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sun is a Business... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been sensing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Although a platform in and of itself, Java is built on its own Object-Oriented language, and most people expect languages to be public-domain-ish, like C++, which is still a tremendously popular language despite its relative age and quirks.
However, when it comes to C++, there is no "official" implementation outside of the basic STL and C libraries. Java, on the other hand, isn't just a language, it comes with a platform that ties in with what most developers expect to have available when they use the language.
The dilemma is fairly obvious. If Sun tries to monopolize Java, Java will likely become marginalized (especially since it now competes on some levels with
In the meantime, others in the market (and other markets) will continue to apply pressure to get better access to the Java language/platform, simply because in terms of languages and platforms, openness is advantageous for everyone developing with it (unless you're talking to MS.)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun still afraid (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems They are afraid some one will provide better support for java then Sun. Perhaps the worst possibility is that Micro$oft will provide that support. :p
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like Red Hat has it's cake, now it wants to eat Sun's too. Me, I just want emerge not to bail when it gets to java.
Re:Negroponte's project (Score:1, Insightful)
Key word being "Negroponte". In all probability, no starving kid is ever going to get a crank-powered laptop, but Negroponte is getting tons of self-promotion.
Let's not be too hard on SUN... (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as Java being Open Source, hasn't Java source code been available for years? Are we talking open source or GPL'd?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" (Score:4, Insightful)
man... (Score:2, Insightful)
Where do they get off demanding that sun or any company release its software under any particular license? Sun is *already* giving away their software for free. Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to sell software that it didn't even write in the first place. The people that are acting to *prevent* anyone from getting access to java are the linux distro makers who refuse to put java in.
This is nothing but an inconvenience for users. Who seriously does not go ahead and install sun java anyway? Who is not inconvenienced by the fact that most distros refuse to integrate it into their package management scheme?
There's literally no reason that red hat, ubuntu and others couldn't package sun java. They only do it out of a desire to strongarm sun into using a different license which will not provide any benefit to their user base. If I was a shareholder, I would punish them severely for this nonsense, as it doesn't serve any kind of business end that I can see, and is more reminiscent of the behavior of the FSF than a for profit company. Someone needs to remind them that they are obligated to pursue the ends of their users and their shareholders before anything else.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever heard of terminator seeds? Seen any of the research about how they can spread to contaminate non-patented crops? Corporations that make GM food are causing people in Africa to starve whether countries allow the import of their crops or not.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:5, Insightful)
The license has pretty few clauses that are good enough even for non-free; on the other hand, those "zealots" you're bashing typically have problems with one or two issues per license. Sun's piece of crap is actually worse than their previous license.
Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, making it open source will increase the pool of programmers who are willing to contribute to it, so the probability of there being some good contributions goes up.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd agree with most of that but see no need for the "only" part. Give them OSS. However, I'd think the goal of such a project would be to expose them to technology. The more you can expose them to, the better of they are. If they want to make changes, etc and learn how to do all that then great they can do that with the OSS provided, but I don't see how you can argue that they'd be better prepared to enter the IT market by ignoring a huge segment of if (closed source is still the vast majority of the IT market). The choice doesn't need to be exclusive, you can give them both. Heck, if available for free (and available for the OS) I'd say you should ship it with MS software as well since thats the most used software in the world. If you want to help them, than give them as much as you can including stuff that will give them experience with the most popular technologies in the world. If its not so much about helping them, but more about proving a point or pushing your personal views, well then thats different.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a good argument, but not a good one for *only* giving them free software. What about the idea of giving them the best tool for the job? Wouldn't that that raise them up a bit? Such as a copy of Eclipse running on Java? Or do you want them to be stuck in emacs/C++ land, thinking that will help "raise the third world up" faster?
It also gives them an entrance into the IT market
The absolute BEST way to do THAT would be to load Windows on these machines.
No, the open source rule is arbitrary, petty, and will ultimately hurt the recipients of these machines.
Re:I seriously doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is to say, Java is typically somewhere between 50%-100% the speed of C. Specifically, this would mean it is typcially NOT as fast as C.
Not sure what you were saying, but this seems to be a _very_ reasonable claim, and perhaps a bit conservative. You can certainly craft some scenarios where Java could be faster, and I expect Java to typically be faster than half the speed of C.
Even in the java benchmark revisited, where the author is out to prove a point that Java is slow, Java performs fairly well (often better than 50% as fast as C using g++), and even sometimes being the fastest or in a dead heat with C (methcall and heapsort). This completely ignores that Java's performance will often be best in more complex applications, when it's own internal optimization can really pay off. Certainly, there are likewise instances where Java can be shown to be much slower than C as well.
Anyway, I can see your point in general, but I think so all the "extravagant claims about Java peroformance posts" to respond to, you picked the wrong one.
Re:Leave Java Alone! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm sorry, but how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sterility - heritable ? Spreading???? WFT?!?!?!?
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are you from, coward? Obviously your nation has taught you tolerance and tact.
open source != free software
No shit. I call Debian open source, because by RMS's definition, it includes things that are not Free Software. In fact, Debian's (slightly) more pragmatic approach is the prime origin of the term "open source".
You can open up your sources to everyone on the planet and forbid that they are compiled at all.
Actually, that wouldn't meet the open source definition [opensource.org]. The very first sentence says "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Looks like it's you who could use a clue.
What have you contributed to the community?
Re:I'm sorry, but how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Free or not - same like being pregnant - you are or you are not. Java is not (free).
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:3, Insightful)
What will be the best tool for the job in 5 years? In 20 years? Will Sun still be developing Java for Linux in that amount of time? If so, will it be compatible with these $100 laptops (which will probably not be replaced until the equipment wears out completely)?
Free software is the best tool for the job when your job has very long-term goals, and Negroponte knows it.
Re:Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me (Score:4, Insightful)
They take software developed by the open source community, add some tweaks, and sell it for good money.
It's tempting to think like that. Actually, Red Hat subsidizes a very large amount of open source development, including kernel developers and other folks that do good work on some of the most essential parts of GNU/Linux. They make great contributions to the community--they are the community.
Redhat in a Nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)
Before, the status quo was actually more palatable to RedHat - no free Linux distribution could legally distribute Sun's JDK/JRE and everyone complained. This also meant that there was a lot of interest in creating a free software Java solution - gcj, harmony, classpath, etc - something that RedHat has invested a lot in. Plus, RedHat could still support Sun's Java through RHEL.
Also, everything that JBoss has created is all open source, but all of it requires Sun's Java. I seriously doubt any of JBoss' major clients runs any part of JBoss on gcj. I think RedHat's next move was to start migrating JBoss' components so they could run on gcj as well, further providing momentum to the free software Java solution as well as moving the largest open source Java company (and its highly deployed Java Application Server) towards a non-Sun Java.
Now the circumstances are a bit different. I think Sun is hoping (and RedHat is dreading) that Java is now "free enough" - without being free software. Now all the distributions can legally provide Sun's JDK/JRE - even Debian, which is more or less the standard (though it is in the non-free section), and consequently Ubuntu, which is now the crowd favorite. Since perhaps the biggest complaint about Sun's Java has now been diffused, there's likely to be a shift in attitude towards free software Java. Why bother? But this is exactly the situation that RedHat doesn't want to be in. I really doubt they want to support gcj while essentially still endorsing Sun's Java through JBoss.
Obviously, this is all my speculation, so I could totally wrong. But it makes sense to me.
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:2, Insightful)
The IT market is very well divided. A small group of people control the production means and a large amount of people are consumers. Copyright laws and Acts tend to dificult the entrance of people from the larger group to the smaller group. FLOSS tend to even the ground.
The problem here is that people generally are ok with the view that third world country should serve, because people from developed countries are servants too. They should have the best tools. But thinking of third world country people making tools is invasive, so have them use the tools for free instead. They will be happy. Forcing them to make the tools is "arbitrary, petty, and will ultimately hurt them".
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:3, Insightful)