Slashdot Mirror
Sun to Release Forte CE Under Mozilla License
A reader writes "Sun will be releasing the source of their Forte for Java IDE (formerly Netbeans) under the Mozilla license. I believe this would be the first time Sun has released a major product under an approved open source license. "
Actually, Sun has been pretty honest about SCSL *not* being an Open Source compliant license. They /have/ claimed that it had "most of the benefits" from Open Source, which of course can be argued.
Beside that, I agree that Sun doesn't owe us (the free software community) anything, and also that the previous poster is totally missing the point when he thinks this somehow is a reason *not* to celebrate when Sun desides to contribute to the community.
It is not the FSF, but the Open Source Initiative who maintains the list. The OSI people are largely the same who invented the term "Open Source" for free (as in speech) software.
The FSF doesn't like the term "open source", they prefer "free software".
When did Sun release these as open source? They used to be open specifications, with a reference implementation source licensable "cheaply".
What part of X did Sun contribute?
MPL _does_ let anyone use the code in proprietary applications. However, the (modified) MPL'ed source files must be made publically available. It is close to the LGPL, except that the LGPL requires the program to be distributed in a format, so the user can replace the LGPL'ed part of the application. No such requirement exists with the MPL.
You know what impressed me the most about the announcement? It wasn't filled with all "We're doing the world a favor... We are reinventing ourselves..." Instead it was low key. The post even states that this is a learning experience for them. They are taking their time to make sure the test will go well.
They are also being honest. They state that they have no intention of doing this with the whole Java package. Agree with it or not, at least they are being honest.
My $0.02 USD is that this is exactly how a company like Sun should be introducing an Open Source project.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
In a sane legal environment such a disclaimer would not be needed, nor would releasing into the public domain make it more difficult to show libel (after all, it is a person, not the software, which is damaged by libel). Releasing into the public domain should put the entire burden on the user of the software for determining the suitability of that software. So in theory, PD is about as "free" as it gets, both for the author and the user.
Alas, we don't live in a "sane legal environment."
The fact that Sun's systems are documented well enough that reasonably compatible third party implementations are plausible, the fact that Sun has released chunks of their system under open source and community licenses, and the fact that Sun is supporting ports for other platforms (Linux, Win32) are icing on the cake.
So, I strongly disagree when you imply that Sun's current success is just due to misleading marketing. To me, Sun has a good product and their open source efforts and support for non-Sun platforms are meaningful. All of those are in sharp contrast to Microsoft. People choose Sun over Microsoft because of technical advantages and despite Microsoft's installed base and despite Microsoft's marketing prowess.
No.
The GPL prevents Sun from accepting bug fixes to their product and reusing that code in a commercial version of the same product, or a related product.
Look at it this way:
I am Sun. I release Some Great Thing 1.2 as a GPL software.
You are J. Random Hacker, who thinks Some Great Thing 1.2 is really nifty, but there are a couple of things about it that bug you. You pick up the sources, fix them, and submit patches to my maintainers at Sun.
I pick up these patches, evaluate them, decide that you, J. Random Hacker, are a talented individual, and that your patches are good. I integrate them into the tree, and your patches are included in Some Great Thing 1.3.
But...
I also have a product, Some Greater Thing, that shares parts of its codebase with Some Great Thing, and you've patched it. Now I can't take the code from Some Great Thing that you've patched and integrate it into Some Greater Thing - thereby forcing a fork in my own internal development!
_This_, primarily, is why I won't use the GPL.
If I were to write a piece of software that I'd like reviewed by the open source community (and I am), I will release it under a really free license, then I can take any patches the community submits and integrate them into my "real" tree, and make that code available both for external use (by the open source community that's helping me with it because they find the basic premise and functionality of my code to be worth their time for whatever reason), and for internal use by my own hackers, so that we can use that code to put beans on the table.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Similarly, if there were no government-granted monopoly, there'd be no need for a GPL!
If there were no copyrights, then everything would be in the public domain. Thus, I would have absolutely zero restrictions upon taking YOUR works closed source! Stop listening to the GNU propaganda. The purpose of the GPL is to protect the rights of the author, period. But if there were no copyrights involved, the author would have no rights at all to protect!
Your comparison of the GPL to the police is strange. What makes the combination of YOU+GPL more like the police than the combination of SUN+MPL? Are you more equal than they?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The major difference between Sun licensing their own products their own way, and your pyramid scheme, as that your scheme hinges upon an act of fraud.
People are called zealots who call fraud freedom, but then turn around and call freedom exploitation. If you want to play games with the English language, try scrabble.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I think these are objective facts...that's how I see it.
Please get out your dictionary and look up the word "objective"...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Anyone who uses any license would be wise to reject any patch that is under a separate copyright. Once you do so you lose control of your own software.
But a minor patch that is not separately copyrighted belongs to the original author when included in the original work. Notice that I said "minor". Your submitting a patch to correct my "foo++" to a "++foo" will give you absolutely zero rights to my code, even after I include the patch.
So a company that releases software under the GPL is within its legal rights to rerelease it under a closed source license EVEN if they have accepted your patch.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
But it is at least debatable whether exercising an artificial, government-granted monopoly to control an idea is "freedom" rather than "exploitation".
It's a debate that's been going on for three hundred years by thinkers more brilliant than us. But no matter how you look at it, it still applies to the GPL, which hinges upon a government granted monopoly. Either the GPL is exploitative or it is not. If it is not, than neither is any copyright Sun uses for it's own creations.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The IDE will work with other VMs than those coming from SUN as well. Try blackdown if you have to stay clear from non open source stuff.
Jilles
One of the great things about Open Source (as in a license like Mozilla, not SCSL) is that the company no longer has absolute control over what happens to the code. Sure, they own the copyright, but the code is out there, and the Mozilla License gives us right to fork the code, and do our own development. They might have released it under selfish or capitalistic reasons, but there is still source code being contributed to the community.
> If I were to write a piece of software that I'd
> like reviewed by the open source community (and
> I am), I will release it under a really free
> license, then I can take any patches the
> community submits and integrate them into my
> "real" tree
Well... I'd really want such a world, but copyright law nearly prohibit this. People who write software does have a say about who is allowed to use that. Of course, unless the license of your own software prohibit modification unless it is contributed back to your tree.
I know only one license which goes that far (SCSL), and of course nobody really likes it. People does want the right to do modification and keep it private.
Getting what you want by the license helps little. But there are always motives that people want to contribute code back to your tree, even if the license does not mandate it. Right?
I think there is a knee-jerk tendency among some OSS proponents to immediately not trust a companies motives if they don't immediatly give up all control over their most prized possessions.
While I might not agree with many of the things Sun has done, most notably their initial handling of the Blackdown porting team, I do see merit in some of their arguments regarding Java. There are very few languages, and even fewer successful ones, that have a truly open standards process. More importantly, it doesn't matter to most developers anyways. A developer only cares that he has ready access to a C(++) compiler, and that some percentage of the rest of the world is using that language along with him/her. About the only time that developer would notice that the language's spec was open was if it fragmented and became difficult to use.
A benevolent dictator is a very useful thing, Linus has shown that with the kernel. Whether or not Sun is benevolent is really what the argument is about.
Hotnutz.com - Funny
That's like saying that the police are exploitative because they use violence to fight violence! If there were no violence, there'd be no need for the police. Similarly, if there were no government-granted monopoly, there'd be no need for a GPL!
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
People often support the "bad" actions of a company because of their "good" actions somewhere else. This is the same kind of thinking that made people support Microsoft when they were the underdog challenging IBM's dominance.
So we should support Sun's use of the MPL in this case. We shouldn't believe it means they have any particular "position" as regards free software.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I've spent lots of time and money setting up a pyramid scheme. Let me run it how I want.
Society doesn't let me do this because it has bad social consequences. (Suddenly millions of people lose all their money, causing a major economic crash).
Similarly, if a particular software license (or business practise) has disastrous social consequences, it makes sense to ban it.
Whether the software licenses around today are socially disastrous is a matter of opinion. But don't assume that anyone who thinks so is a "dumb fucking zealot" - they just have a different opinion to yourself.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
The Netscape Public License version 1.0 wasn't DFSG, and I think this applied to the MPL 1.0.
However, the latest version of the MPL is DFSG-free.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Hmmm I seem to have the numbering wrong there. Anyway, there were earlier non-free versions but the current one is free.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
The Debian Free Software Guidelines, which were drawn up by the community of Debian developers plus others, are the accepted yardstick - there doesn't seem to be much controversy about this.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
What he probably meant is OSI-approved. ESR is the chairman of the OSI, but they don't always agree with him; he thinks the ASPL should be approved, but it isn't.
Thanks. It looks pretty stupid when you have a sig misspelled doesn't it!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
First, what exactly do you consider an "approved" OpenSource license? Don't let your love affair with the L/GPL make you say something stupid. How can an Open Source license be "approved?" Does BSD count as an "approved" license? How about the X license. Why doesn't community source count as an "approved license." I don't particularly like the GPL, but is it still "upapproved?" Say you like, but don't blurt out something as a fact if its just your opinion. (IE. It was released under a license I approve of.) That said, I think that this is a pretty awesome thing for the spread of Java. Say what you will, but Sun was doing a lot to make Java not very appitizing for a lot of other OSs. This also means that non *NIX OSes will get some of the Java action. (Yea, I know it runs on NT. And Mac...kinda) However, I really don't like Java, so I'm not quite sure if I want it to spread. But to each his own, and we can always use another option.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It seems there's a litte misundestunding here. By approved, the author is saying that the license is real free-sfotware, with no hidden glitches. SCSL is not an approved OS license, for example. He didn't mean that Sun needs our approval for anything, just that the license conforms to what we regard as free software. And that's important, no matter how anti-RMS you might be, because it means software for everybody, with all the real practical benefits that truly free-software code gives to the people.
By releasing it under the Mozilla license, SUN is free to take any changes and bug fixes and place them in closed source products. The GPL doesn't allow this
Sig goes here
The GNU General Public License (GPL);
The GNU Library or `Lesser' Public License (LGPL);
The BSD license;
The MIT license (sometimes called called the `X Consortium license');
The Artistic license;
are bad links to ./
if anyone wants to mail me them i'll be happy to keep a list on my site. www.bigfreakinserver.com
-Jon
this is my sig.
To expect a company that has spent 20 odd years in fierce competition to suddenly drop all that and "get" the idea of giving stuff away is asking too much. It'll be done in steps, and we should support and offer useful criticism rather than just dismissal.
Progress? HAH! Try devolution.
Anybody else remember the good old days when Sun was an arrogant upstart run by former Berkeley hackers? Their big selling point back then was them giving away -- GIVING -- source code for all kinds of neat things, like NFS. They were one of the first companies to make a living off of free-as-in-beer software that also came with source code. And they were terrific innovators in hardware. SPARC processors, anyone?
Sun has lost touch with its roots. It is jealously guarding Java, somehow believing that it can maintain control of the language while simultaneously making it a more appealing choice than, say, Windows. Sun would be Microsoft IN AN INSTANT if they had the chance. We do well to remember that.
"Honey, it's not working out; I think we should make our relationship open-source."
I think that having open-source projects all under the same (or at least compatible) licenses is something that is truly necessary to open-source being a success. Otherwise, while you can bug fix to your heart's content, you loose the benefits of reuse. Whether it winds up being the GPL, Artistic License, a BSD-type license or whatever, I think that it would help if we could all agree on some license that was both flexible enough to make corporations happy without departing significantly from the spirit of the open-source community.
Who gets to Approve an Open Source Licence? RMS? ESR?
...that Sun HAD to use an approved license, it was merely stated the they have not until recently (except for Jakahrta). Don't muddle this simple issue.
---
Xiphoid Process Records - http://xiphoidprocess.com
San Francisco based electronic music.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
It's cool, I was reading one of the mozilla newsgroups (maybe netscape.public.mozilla.layout?), and someone from Sun posted asking some questions about how to make GTK+ integreate better with Motif. A kind soul (I believe a RedHat employee?) pointed out that IBM had done a lot of the work this guy was aking about. Over the next few weeks, they all looked at eachother source and planned the best way to do some (smallish) stuff.
It was lind of cool...
Although this is not an annoucement with the kind of importance like Java being opened, it is an important testing of the waters for Sun and should be encouraged rather than flamed.
To expect a company that has spent 20 odd years in fierce competition to suddenly drop all that and "get" the idea of giving stuff away is asking too much. It'll be done in steps, and we should support and offer useful criticism rather than just dismissal.
The only thing left to see is if they actually do it, being as the actual release is still two months away. Sun has changed it's course before, hopefully they don't do it here.
Hotnutz.com - Funny
First: this is not the first time Sun has released open-source software. NFS, NIS, parts of XEmacs, parts of X, XView, olwm, and of course RPC and XDR are all open-source software released by Sun. All of these, except for the XEmacs parts, were released under a BSDish license.
Not that this isn't important --- all of the things mentioned above were at least ten years ago.
About Lothar's post about defense systems and banking systems being open-source: of course they should be open source. Would you really want to be defended by "defense" systems the would-be defenders didn't have the source to? Would you really want to run your bank with software you didn't have the source to?
RMS has never said that all software should be freely available --- just that people who have a piece of software have the right to use, copy, modify, and redistribute the software as they see fit.
Other minor points: the Mozilla license is OK according to OSI and Debian; the MPL doesn't let the original author use your code in proprietary software (but the NPL does); releasing public domain software doesn't automatically make you liable for damages; US-government-made software is in the public domain because government works are not eligible for copyright, not because the government can get away with it.
I'm really depressed with the quality of comments that get moderated up on Slashdot these days.
Sun released Tomcat (the Servlet/JSP reference implementation) under the Apache license as Project Jakarta. This was a pretty major release. :)
Check it out at:
jakarta.apache.org.
- The GNU General Public License (GPL);
- The GNU Library or `Lesser' Public License (LGPL);
- The BSD license;
- The MIT license (sometimes called called the `X Consortium license');
- The Artistic license;
- The Mozilla Public License (MPL);
- The Qt Public License (QPL).
- The IBM Public License.
- The MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License).
- The Ricoh Source Code Public License.
- The Python license.
- The zlib/libpng license.
Other conforming licenses include the IJG JPEG library license and the OPL (OpenLDAP Public License).-tim
Sorry, but I have to rant about Sun here for a bit. Before someone says it: no, I'm not some Microsoft troll here. I have used Java and C++ both quite extensively. Also, I've dealt with Sun's marketing people (namely, in getting a piece of software certified 100% Pure Java).
Sun does some things very well. Perhaps the thing they are best at doing, is catering to the "suits". This announcement just felt like more attention gathering to this effect, since Open Source is the buzzword right now.
However, Sun is all about money. Big money. Enterprise level stuff. They don't give a rat's ass about the little guy. You'd be amazed how many emails I've received from them since I got that product certified. Usually, they want me to participate in some conference at $5k a pop.
This announcement is just posturing and nothing more. Look at the second part of it, for example:
2. Is everything in Forte for Java, Community Edition being open-sourced?
No. The binary version of Forte for Java, Community Edition includes two components that will not be open-sourced: the browser and the compiler. If required, the modular design of Forte for Java, Community Edition permits developers to replace these components with alternatives.
Now, I'm not one to bite the hand that feeds me. If Sun wants to make this small open-source handout, then that's fine. But it's more hype than anything. Much like Java in general.
Yes I may sound bitter, but that's just because I'm sick of the games that Sun plays. They are your stereotypical "big" corporation... through and through.
Hope that wasn't too offtopic but Sun just irks me sometimes with all the attention they get for stupid little meaningless gestures. They care about the Linux community about as much as Microsoft does. Don't doubt it for a second.
Best regards,
SEAL
"Approved open source license"? Come on now! Since when does Sun owe you, me, or anyone else anything? Sun can release their products under whatever license they feel like. I'm thrilled that they're releasing anything. Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to change corporate inertia and convince the managers, directors, and board members that releasing source is good? I'm impressed that they do anything at all. And I'm even more impressed that they don't get pissed off by people whinning about the steps that they take. Stand down your GPL jihad and give them a break!
"I shoulda never sent a penguin out to do a daemon's work."
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.