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."
And we're surprised by this how? (Score:3, Interesting)
More to the point, why do so many people have their hats on so tight that they can't think straight when it comes to Sun? Like Netscape and Oracle, people are willing to overlook a huge number of idiocies in certain companies in the name of united hate towards Microsoft as if Microsoft was the only closed source software publisher. In the end, THAT is what this about because even if every byte of Java's code was naked to the world, it isn't going to be any less slow or bloated. Fixing Java and spreading it is NOT what this is about.
Sun has plenty of baggage but positioned Java as if they could have their cake and eat it too: uber-cross-platform but closed source. Everyone should buy into it as if it came from the masses organically instead of top-down from Sun, as if it was open when it wasn't, and adopt it while shouting crap at Microsoft about Visual Basic, and so forth.
So now the OSS community which has so many coders so deeply psychologically invested in Java and the potential future, despite that future to date falling abysmally short of any of the initial propaganda, finds that they can't ignore the chickens who came home to roost and are laying eggs all over the sofa and desk.
Time to get with it and either pressure Sun or let the issue drop and come up with a totally OSS cross-platform language. Oh, I forgot. We have them but we still hold this childish fascination with the legend of Sun as competition for Microsoft when they are demonstrably not and their flagship OS Solaris is being kicked aside for SuSE, Ubuntu, and Fedora Core here, there, and everywhere. If the OSS community wants to continue this idiot face-off with Microsoft, the it needs to stop clinging to the apron-strings of companies that are in the end not one bit different.
Whichever way Sun goes on this, the OSS community can't let that be an influence or controlling factor in anything. Life must go on, Java or not. Not as though I use it for more than KoLMafia [sourceforge.net] anyhow. Give me something that is fast, open, and cross platform that lives and dies by its own credentials and value. NOT something crappy being clung to for psycho-political reasons.
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
You attitude towards the "weight and complexity" of Java is also out of date. Early versions of Java had a reputation (deserved, alas) for being bloated and slow. But nowadays, the Java runtime isn't any heavier or more complex than most of the runtimes you need to run most of the software out there. Even a C++ program, if it has any features had all, has a heavy-duty runtime. Besides which, the optimizing features [sun.com] of Sun's Java VM adds power, it doesn't take it away.
In any case, the specs [laptop.org] of the $100 laptop are not that bad. Aside from lacking a hard disk, it's not much less powerful than a typical laptop sold in the US about 5 years ago.
The whole thing is lame. (Score:2, Interesting)
Next to that I have full access to use the Java source code, I can use any knowledge I obtain from studying it and can even use parts and pieces from the code for my own good as long as I'm not trying to this this for commercial benefit. Isn't that also what open source is about, share and share alike. Spread the knowledge? As long as you're doing that you can just about do anything with the Java source.
So please, spare me all of this bullshit about restrictive licenses. I think the whole real issue is driven by a bunch of people in the background who are basicly hoping to get into projects which can make some money out of this. The GPL leaves enough playroom for this (see RHES) but other licenses appearantly leave out these options entirely. And how peculiar; these happen to be the exact licenses which have been under fire from just about every average OS zealot out there. Do I smell something fishy here ?
Re:Sun is a Business... (Score:4, Interesting)
The same is true of various other open source licenses.
And in any case, that doesn't answer my question as to how it would hurt their bottom line.
Re:Have any of you assholes who bitch (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... (Score:2, Interesting)
Debian doesn't support anything unless there has been a general resolution to state a preference for or against something. This is a perfect example of how a few individuals in the Debian project have enough power to do whatever they want. This package was built in secret, the license was reviewed in secret, and it was pushed into the non-free achive after only a few hours in the new queue.
A new version of emacs would have more trouble getting it into the archive than Sun's Java apparently did. Please don't imagine that the actions of the Debian Cabal reflect the will of 1000 Debian Developers.
Even if Debian did allow Sun's Java in under the current license (and I expect to see it kicked back out shortly...the license is really that bad) it's in the non-free section. By definition, packages in non-free have licenses that Debian doesn't like.
Re:not satisfied with what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Redhat *does* work on an Open/Free Java stack.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Money. (Score:3, Interesting)
Open sourcing may also increase the number of programmers adopting java and the number of manufacturers of hardware and software (operating systems) distributing java thereby growing the market for Java services. Finally open sourcing java may increase revenue from testing and compliance for those that want to pass the official tests.
I am sure none of those concepts are new to Sun because they have already made the decision to open source netbeans, openoffice, and solaris all of which were either making serious money for them or cost them serious money to buy. The same business decisions apply to Java and solaris.
Look how much open sourcing eclipse helped IBM with that product. Eclipse used to be a very little used program sold by IBM now it's the industry standard in java development and fast becoming the favored development environment of ruby and rails.
Re:Why would you want java on there anyway? (Score:1, Interesting)
For comparison, a similar C program has a resident size of 252 KB. The number is that high, because ld.so and GNU libc brings in a lot of statically allocated read-write data (more than 100 KB) to every process. That's also quite bad, but still less than 1/34th of what Java loads. The shared libraries amount to 1300 KB, but those are shared with almost every process in the system (i.e. those who use GNU libc).