The Curious Incident of Sun in the Night-Time 370
Joe Barr writes "NewsForge is carrying a story by Richard Stallman which blasts Sun's recent Java move, claiming it is deceptive and self-serving, makes Java neither free nor even open source, and leaves him wondering why it has attracted so much attention."
Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, his position is equally valid. From his perspective, he's only interested in Java being "free" as in shiny boots. My own frustration with Mr. Stallman, however, is that he doesn't really seem to work with companies like Sun to see if their interests and his own can coincide. So he spends his time on an attempt to replicate a complex system that he lacks the resources to properly follow. (Don't get me wrong, GCJ is nice, but I doubt it will ever "catch up".)
Even more frustrating is that many of the other OSS "leaders" (*cough*de Icaza*cough*) feel it necessary to start brand new projects out of a sense of NIH syndrome rather than help support the platforms that are actually needed by the industry. (i.e. Java) The result is that the OSS community has managed to fragment its efforts and has had a much harder time catching up than it should have.
Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Before all the.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose he refers to his opinion (haven't read the article yet to call it fact) that Sun has actually accomplished nothing while everyone is celebrating because it seems like something. If this is the case, I would actually use a better fitting metaphor.
Re:Before all the.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Incidentally, why have we suddenly started commemorating Sir Arthur's birthday this year? I can't recall anyone ever mentioning it before.
Bizarre thought processes (Score:2, Insightful)
Sheesh. Companies don't use the term 'free software' because the name sucks. It's ambiguous.
As for "careless readers", Stallman doesn't seem to mind Gnu/Linux, even though the "careless reader" may assume Gnu wrote the entire Linux package. But Stallman is happy because it gives Gnu more publicity.
Even if the "careless reader" is making false assumptions, how about using the same logic and be grateful that OSS is getting more free publicity? But that would require Stallman to be grateful to something to doesn't involve him and he doesn't control, and we know that won't happen.
He's right, you know... (Score:1, Insightful)
"Gah!!! Free from these non-open-source chains that bind me so!"
I wonder what Stallman would do if, for a day, he just couldn't think of anything to complain about.
Re:Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun, Sun, Sun (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't these 2 separate announcements? (Score:4, Insightful)
1 - It will now be easier to distribute Java with a Linux distro
(see http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/05/05/java_lin
2 - Sun is planning to open source Java but has not decided on all the details (I presume they're trying to pick the right OSI-approved license)
(see http://news.com.com/Sun+promises+to+open-source+J
Look at the dates in the articles. The "we will open source Java" announcement (#2) was made at JavaOne. The "we'll make it easier to distribute Java" (#1) was made before JavaOne AFAIK.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's just your average Slashdotter. When the last story was posted, I was shocked at the caliber of people who didn't know about Java's source code. The fact that the source has been available for about 7 years makes this incredibly frustrating.
Most of the OSS "leaders" are well aware of the SCSL and JRL. They don't like the SCSL because of fears of "contamination" by reading the source code. (Sun's lawyers are often terrible at writing licenses. They seem to add in every boiler-plate requirement in existence, even if it isn't the intent of Sun Microsystems Corp.) The JRL license fixed many of these problem with viewing the code, but it doesn't allow for the source to be forked or otherwise redistributed. There's also a lot of handwaving from OSS projects that the JRL might be dangerous even though they can't find anything wrong with it.
What they *do* have a valid complaint about is that Java isn't OSS as in the OSI definition. Which it's not intended to be. It's open source as in the source can be freely read and played with. It's also open as in it's fully standardized by the JSR Committee. Sun has been very reticent to actually "Open Source" (note the caps) Java because of the problems they had with Microsoft. Had Microsoft not abused their contract with Sun all those years ago, Sun might still be releasing only a reference implementation for others to build their own JVMs against.
Given that it was a reference implementation, it would have made sense to make it Open Source by now. Unfortunately, Microsoft did what they did and Sun is now the primary Java distributor rather than the merely the enforcer of the standards.
Re:Understandable (Score:2, Insightful)
However, he seems to have achieved more towards realising his dream that many of us considered possible when he started.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stallman rants about media coverage... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's exactly the problem. 20 minutes after Java goes "free", some idiot will start adding pointers to it. Sun's stewardship of the language is the only thing preventing this.
King Canute (slightly OT) (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, the essay really had just one topic (reflected by the title): there's a mistaken identity problem with Sun's change in licensing. It's not "Free Software," nor even open source. Now, it doesn't seem like you disagree with his thesis, so what's the problem?
Re:Understandable (Score:3, Insightful)
Good question. Why are they supporting
Sun should work with RMS, his type of software is * gaining * market share.
Java already gained it and owns the industry. I'm not sure what your point is.
If Sun doesn't shape up real soon they will soon become go out of business, leaving proprietary java in a mess, and another popular de-facto java won't have to "catch up" to sun's.
Lots of hyperbole, little substance. Sun is still profitable (even if barely) and has done much better than the other Unix vendors over the years. While their failure to commit to a given path can be incredibly frustrating at times, they have managed to constantly reinvent themselves as the market requires. HP and SGI can't claim the same and IBM's Unix business is mostly propped up by momentum and lots of consultants.
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can make a pointer system that gets past the bytecode verifier then there is nothing to stop you implementing it now. Free java compilers are not in short supply its the libs that are the issue.
He references the work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is Stallman relevant anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
On one side we have the 'use it if you can' camp, and on the other, the 'it's not free so screw that' camp. We need both, though we could do without some of the scaremongering [iu.edu] so favoured by the latter.
IBM legal counsel is not handwaving (Score:1, Insightful)
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-lega
about the residual rights clause of the JRL:
"Notice that the residuals clause does not extend to copyrights. You can
study Sun's source code under the JRL and then turn around and write your
own implementation relying solely on what you remember, and you're covered
for any potential trade secrets that Sun might have had. However, if your
code turns out to be "substantially similar" (an intentionally vague legal
standard), then Sun might have a copyright claim that it can assert. You
need to make sure that your code is not substantially similiar. How one
does that without constantly referring to the code that you're trying not
to copy without looking like you're trying to copy without getting caught
is an interesting question.
Sun probably didn't intend this result. What they probably meant was that
as long as you aren't making literal copies of material portions of their
source code, you're covered by the residuals clause. If that's the case,
I think their desire for brevity got in the way of clarity. They would
need to expand that section a bit to make it clear that the residuals
license covered copyright issues as well as long as you didn't literally
copy large amounts of code."
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: More Bizarre thought processes (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not helping your point. Given "Linux," the reader is more likely to assume that Linus wrote the entire thing. Given "GNU/Linux," the reader is given the two main sources of code for the core operating system. Perhaps you don't think that GNU deserves that much credit, but you at least have to realize that there's a difference here.
free software vs. open source (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever since the term "open source" was coined, we have seen companies find ways to use it and their product name in the same sentence.
Whats funny is I don't understand the confusion here. Sun announced that Java has a new distribution license so Linux distros can have java in their non-free sections of their package management systems.
Sun also announced that they are looking in to releasing Java source under an osi approved license. They are two individual stories, and it has absolutely nothing to with the decade old free vs. open source software debate.
Re:Understandable (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither is Java.
http://www.jcp.org/en/home/index [jcp.org]
Like it or not, the JCP is a REAL standards committee with thousands of members [jcp.org] whos only goal is to standardize Java and Java-based technologies.
Sun has no obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun owes me nothing; they paid the salaries of the people that developed and implemented Java. And Sun's current financial situation, in spite of the hugely popular language, is evidence that they aren't laughing all the way to the bank as a result of controlling Java.
So what freedom of mine is Sun denying? People and/or corporations who create intellectual property are under no obligation to give it away for free.
Go use C++, or PHP, or PERL, or Ruby if you can't abide by Sun's terms.
Stallman doesn't seems to understand open source (Score:2, Insightful)
" A program is free software if its users have certain crucial freedoms. Roughly speaking, they are: the freedom to run the program, the freedom to study and change the source, the freedom to redistribute the source and binaries, and the freedom to publish improved versions. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. [gnu.org]) Whether any given program is free software depends solely on the meaning of its license. "
Sun don't say java will is free software, it is OPEN source, since you can download and study the source. If you want to contribute with code optimizations or other improvements, you can study the code and send it to SUN, modifying and redistributing at will would spawns several forks with limited compatibility killing the "write once, run anywhere".
I hope that Java never became "free" in Stallman's definition.
"If you develop a Java program on Sun's Java platform, you are liable to use Sun-only features without even noticing. By the time you find this out, you may have been using them for months, and redoing the work could take more months. You might say, "It's too much work to start over." Then your program will have fallen into the Java Trap; it will be unusable in the Free World."
This states that Stallman doesn't understant hoe JCP works. There is no "Sun-only features" as standard libraries, SUN's VM implements the specifications that are avaliable to everyone to implement in his way (the specification garantes the interoperability).
Java is already open, as open as it is usefull to the open source community. it is not as open as stallman's dogma says it is desired, but that is another matter.
I wish I could understand (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem I have w/ RMS is loudly using words like "ethical" and assuming that everyone means the same thing by them as he does. It's a common failing in the modern world (listen to US political parties pretending to disagree with each other sometime), but it makes a guy who was once supposedly a good engineer sound like the guys who are _really_ trying to destroy the world, and not by selling closed source software either.
In the end, Sun has the right to use any license they want, and the ethical choice in a free society is to support that. Anyone is welcome to try to convince others to change the social contract, but the good guys shouldn't do it by demonizing Sun, etc, because they won't accept someone else's non-advantageous license terms for their own work.
Open Letter to Slashdot "Editors" (Score:5, Insightful)
It has come to my attention that you are doing a woefully inept job. Communication between editors is apparently non-existent, no attempt is made to drill down to original sources, misleading and incorrect article summaries are often posted, your copy editing is virtually non-existent and you frequently commit numerous other sins against journalism. *You should be ashamed* by your lack of professionalism. It casts a shadow on you, on Slashdot, and on the tech community. In fact, were you my employees, you would almost certainly be out of a job.
Please, please, please, stop screwing around and treat this like a fucking job. There are eight hours in a workday: use them for working and you might even gain the respect of the Slashdot community and that of other, professional journalists.
Thanks for your time,
Acy Stapp
Sun's motivations (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Sun is ripe to be aquired. With the CEO-for-life gone, a reasonable market-valuation, and a set of "crown jewels" (Solaris, Java, fantastic server design), it's just a matter of time before someone (Apple?) sees the match and ponies up. Given that very likely possibility, why would Sun weaken its short-term value proposition for a buyer by giving up a certain amount of control over Java. (Not to mention putting a lot of cutting-edge VM code out there for competitors to leverage.) Java is a crown-jewel for aquisition; why give that up?
Second, Java is doing quite well without being fully open source, thank you. Go do searches on the job market. Java is still the hot ticket. It is a skill in demand because it holds a commanding share of server-side development; past, present, and through intertia, future. For any sysadmin, downloading and installing a Java VM is child's play. It's also free-as-in-beer. Yes, that isn't the same thing as fully free, but it's good enough for Java to be successful.
Third, Java has succeeded, in large part, due to a reasonably open, albeit slow, process known as the JCP. There's a level of quality, consistency, and prudentness to Java which has made it successful. We can argue day and night whether all the open-source developer's in the world tweaking Java outside of Sun's stewardship would be more or less successful. What matters, for Sun, is that the current process is successful. Change from that course must be accomplished in steps to verify Sun isn't heading in the wrong direction, for its bottom line.
I should add that as a developer, I'd love to see Java be FOSS; GPLed or BSDed or whatever. Consider, for a moment, that Sun is a public company, and you'll see why Sun has done more to open-source their flagships than, say, Oracle or Microsoft. Or IBM for that matter (AIX, mainframe-OSes, DB2, Lotus apps, Websphere, Rational apps, MQ...)
Apologies in advance that the article is mainly about the media's misinterpretation of Sun's move, but in my opinion, Java licensed in a way that promotes its distribution as part of Linux flavors is still newsworthy, and Sun has taken yet another big step.
Re:Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
So while you are right that Java is needed, free Java is not needed. Mono, by virtue of being free and needed at the same time, stands to gain.
-Mark
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:3, Insightful)
What I was doing was disagreeing with its validity, and alluding, through sarcasm, to facts in the real world which suggest that the concern it articulates is empirically unsupported.
Whether Sun open sources its implementation of Java is pretty much irrelevant to whether or not this happens (except that it not doing so creates a barrier to Sun incorporating innovations from other versions, making a split of the language more likely.)
See, the thing is, once there is one clean room implementation open-sourced -- which there is now -- Sun doesn't have control of the language as used based on its control of its implementation. People can take it anyway they want, and the only control is what people to choose to use, Sun or something else.
Re:Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary difference between .NET and Java for Free Software hackers is that Mono is usable right now, while gcj and GNU Classpath is not. The Free Software crowd doesn't really care about standards, sure it tries to follow standards when they are applicable, but these folks primarily care about Free Software. Mono is unequivocably Free Software, and Mono is usable today. gcj and GNU Classpath are also Free Software, but they aren't nearly as usable as Mono. This set of facts leads lots of folks to fall into the "Java trap" which is basing Free Software on a proprietary platform.
Had Sun released a Free Software version of Java before Mono became popular there would be very little Free Software written in C#. However, thanks to Sun's short-sightedness lots of Free Software hackers are taking a look at the available platform choices and are choosing Mono over Java. Sun's own "Java Desktop" has more C# in it than Java. If one of your prerequisites for choosing a language platform is that the platform has to be Free Software then Mono is the clear winner. Unfortunately for Sun, the Free Software community is becoming a very important segment of the computer industry. A large portion of the software that makes Sun hardware a worthwhile purchase is Free Software. Sun should be doing everything in its power to make Java the best platform for Free Software development in the world. Instead Sun is trying to guarantee that it retains the upper hand in the Java world, even if that means that Java gets surpassed by other platforms.
I think RMS is bang on (Score:3, Insightful)
The new Java licence does not preserve the Four Freedoms. If you use Java under the standard binary licence, you are at the mercy of Sun. And although they might be playing nice today, the fact remains that they could change their minds at anytime in future, potentially leaving you up a certain well-known waterway without an implement of propulsion.
I can see why Sun want to protect Java, but I don't think keeping the source code locked up is the best way to do it.
The Java brand name is undeniably strong. So what would be wrong with keeping Java as a registered trademark; and then licencing the use of the trademark on separate terms from the copyrighted software? Then, if you changed the functionality beyond what Sun would permit, you would no longer be allowed to call it Java. The GPL, para. 7, is explicit that you can't distribute software it covers if some other restriction stands in the way. They obviously meant this to cover software idea patents, but a condition regarding unauthorised trademark use would also fit with this. If you just removed all mention of the word "Java", then you would be beyond the scope of trademark law -- so nothing would then prevent you from complying with the requirements of the GPL.
That, then, is my proposal. Experimenters get a GPL'ed and extensible Java-alike. Meanwhile, the likes of Microsoft can't subvert Java and squeeze Sun out of the market. Everyone should be happy!
Re: More Bizarre thought processes (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me reiterate, for clarification. Your initial statement was that RMS pushes for GNU/Linux because it will bring in more publicity for GNU, with the downside that some people might assume that GNU was responsible for the "entire Linux package" (emphasis mine). My response was that, given the two options "Linux" and "GNU/Linux," the former is much more likely to make people assume that Linus is responsible for the entire package, whereas the latter gives each a pretty equal share.
If your argument is that GNU is an organization, where Linux is a "product" (GNU/Linux ~~ Microsoft Windows), then I can see that being a problem. I've always seen GNU as the project to make free software tools [gnu.org] (as in, GNU == [glibc; gcc;
FSF/Linux isn't very fair, definitely, so I agree with you if that's your problem with it.
Re:Before all the.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The Curious State of Being Non-Free (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes there are alternatives to Sun's Java
http://viva.sourceforge.net/runtime.html [sourceforge.net] is a list of free Java run times.
If Sun dropped off the face of the earth and Java was still important you can bet someone would help the OSS version catch up.
Not saying it doesn't matter at all. Just that to the vast majority of users it doesn't matter.
Re:Understandable (Score:1, Insightful)
However, thanks to Sun's short-sightedness lots of Free Software hackers are taking a look at the available platform choices and are choosing Mono over Java. Sun's own "Java Desktop" has more C# in it than Java.
The way I see it, the reason why Mono is kinda ready while GCJ isn't is that, regardless of the platform (Windows, Solaris, Linux, MacOSX, AIX, OS/400,
That, and the contempt the C crowd (inplying the FSF) showed (rightly or wrongly) for Java in its early years, is the reason why no serious effort to write a Free Java was undertaken until recently.
When the Free Software crowd (finally) realized that, regardless of the whining about the lack of pointer, GC, blah, blah, blah, the rest of the world was migrating fast to Java, they had 2 choices:
swallow their pride and start getting serious about Free Java
find a reason to go with C# instead
Guess which one they picked...
Anyway. The end result is that while Free Software is stuck to an old-ish x86 only Mono (what's the status on
Now, I would love doing my stuff on a Free Java, but saying that "it's all Sun's fault" is dead wrong. Blame the arrogance of the FSF or Mono instead.
Re:Open Letter to Slashdot "Editors" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Before all the.... (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS is very up honest about what they mean by "free" and "Open Source" and define their terms up front. So is Sun.
Others are not so honest. Take Apple with their Darwin shenanigans for example, or SugarCRM with their releasing the original SugarCRM under the MPL and then threatening to sue others when they tool the MPL project. rebranded it as the license requires, modified the installer so the installer actually worked and extended several modules, and then released it. Well, the SugarCRM founders threw a hissy fit, crying copyright infringement, plagarism, brand dilution, etc. all while continuing to brag that they released as Open Source under the Mozilla license. When the other organization's legal representation broke down the MPL and explained what the license actually allows, nay, what it REQUIRES, they quickly dropped the MPL and introduced their own "Open Source" license. The thing is, if you actually READ the ENTIRE license (if you read just the part with the open source release you're actually not reading the entire license) you will soon discover that a) it's not so open and b) you can end up suffering a severe case of vendor lock if you ever decide to "upgrade" to the commercial release of Sugar, because when you read and accept the commercial edition's license you'll discover that not only is it actually not open, but you lose the right to use the open source edition or to use your data stored in the commercial version of Sugar if you ever decide to stop subscribing to the commercial version. You cannot run the "open source" version of Sugar and the commercial version in parallel, and you cannot "downgrade" to the "open source" version. Their use of the term "Open Source" is dishonest/deceptive, er, downright FRAUDULENT because they do not disclose UP FRONT what they consider "open source" to mean.
This is exactly the kind of shit you do NOT see Sun, RMS, or even RedHat trying to pull when they use the terms "free" or "open source" - they define the terms VERY clearly using understandable verbage in their licenses. In Sun's case they are very up front about wanting to avoid forking because they want Java to gain momentum and reach a critical mass to help keep the ASP.Net beast at bay. What Sun is doing is perfectly reasonable, and a fine balance between the BSD/GPL route and the proprietary vendor-lock route.
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to be able to rely on something unified like Java ( and sablevm and kaffe and jamvm and microsoft java and ibm java and gnu classpath and gcj and jikes and apache harmony and jupiter ).
Re:NDA FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is not an NDA.
I've signed NDAs before, this is not one./p.