Posted by
Hemos
on from the will-it-even-matter dept.
jilles writes "I found this article at infoworld. Apparently some company executive of Sun was caught saying that SUN Microsystems is moving toward making its Java technology fully open-source."
import com.mon-sense.Grain_of_salt;
...
Grain_of_salt grain = new Grain_of_salt(HUGE);
The guys context of the phrase "open source" is completely off in the article. He keeps refereing to it as though it were a product, not a mode of release.
"We're not adverse to full open source [for Java]. It's really what is the right model for that open source and where that model is for that life cycle," Paolini said.
...
"I can say that open source for Java is our goal."
...
"We've really taken a simple program language to a platform very quickly."
Come on folks! This sounds like a script that seeds press-releases with the latest buzzword. This guy seems to not understand what 'open source' means, and by the last comment, seems to be a little confused about Java - the language, and the JVM as a concept.
Either that or he was only talking to a bunch of know-nothing MBA's.
The REAL jabber has the/. user id: 13196
--
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
I wish Java didn't mean two things
by
slim
·
· Score: 5
I think Sun really did both Javas a disservice by giving them both the same name and marketing them as one thing.
Java, the object oriented programming language that's like C++ done right, is a very nice language to program in and deserves to do well. Note that you can/could compile Java source into any target language you like, from x86 machine code to Java bytecode.
Java, the portable bytecode and virtual machine technology is a very useful technology for the network age and is completely unrelated to the programming language. Note that you can/could compile any high level manguage you like to Java bytecode (especially if GCC supports it) from Eiffel to C to Ada to Java.
So, we're left wondering which of these, if any, or both, Sun plans to "open source"... --
Java is itself a language fork for christ's sake. Surely you've heard of it's predecessors C++, C with classes, K&R C, C, B and BCPL. Not to mention the many other langs it stole other idioms from!
Calling Java a "fork" of C++ because C++ preceeds it and has some things in common is patently ridiculous, and appropriation of features from other languages does not a fork make.
Don't forget that Java itself is basically just a specification for a language and a means of implementation. The stuff that Sun [ is | may be ] looking at open sourcing are their virtual machine and bytecode compilers (we assume).
The "forking danger" here is that a bunch of other organizations might simply decide they want to introduce new stuff to the language and say, "Okay. This is our version of Java. So there." Microsoft licensed the technology from Sun and proceeded to do just that, completely against the terms of the contract.
(Incidentally: John Heilemann writes a fantastic article about the Microsoft anti-trust suit in this month's Wired. He asked Steve Ballmer if Microsoft believed they were signing the contract in bad faith. His answer was a bit on the long and vitriolic side, but it seemed to boil down to, "Of course we were, and the sub-50 IQ people at Sun were morons if they didn't think so too." Yes, "sub-50 IQ" was his phrase.)
Would it be so bad if someone forked the code in that manner? Maybe not. But I suspect that plenty of people are twitchy about just that possibility, given the whole J++ fiasco.
Doesn't matter if it's open source...
by
karzan
·
· Score: 4
Just make it Open Systems! If they made Java a completely Open System, designed by industry consensus and completely backward compatible with a publicly available spec, anyone could create a complete Java implementation, open source or not. This is far more important than availability of source, but then again Sun has been more against Open Systems than any of the UNIX vendors, historically.
Doesn't even understand own product
by
OlympicSponsor
·
· Score: 4
"Java" can't be open sourced--it's a specification, not a program. So is he talking about releasing the source to their implementation (which would be largely worthless*) or about opening the spec up to everyone to modify like with RFC's (which would be awesome)?
My guess: Neither one. The guy was speaking at ApacheCon, he was just using "Open Source" as a buzzword. At best, we'll see the source code of some (not all) of their implementation.
*Obviously this would provide immediate help to projects like Kaffe, but it wouldn't be all that useful long-term. --
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
This is really just a reaction to C#. Rather than trying to submit Java to a standards body and let everyone make their own Java compilers (instead of Java - like compilers) Sun wants everyone to use Java on every platform - without putting forth the effort to port it to every platform themselves. But more importantly, they want everyone to use their compiler/runtime/etc
This may or may not happen, and it may or may not benefit them. But if it does happen, it can only benefit us.
-Adam
It's no match for Larry-Boy and his Super Suction ears! "spluh, spluh, spluh, spluh, spluh"
How do you make a squeeking, suctioning sound in cyberspace?
Then they cannot use a GPL license. It's one thing for an editor like emacs to fork, another for a language to fork.
They must use a different license, where forking is somehow not allowed. I think that's understandable for a piece of software on which millions of other pieces of software are based, such as Java. Although they want it to grow and change quickly, they want it to stay in one version, if only to keep sanity in the ranks of millions of Java programmers (like myself). Can you imagine if someone came out with a Java++ with new features and incomplete support for new initiatives that came along?
Oh wait...
So I support Sun, as a Java programmer still. And I understand why a "pure" GPL license probably isn't the answer in this instance.
-Ben
How Sun can use the GPL on Java
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 5
Sun can indeed use the GPL on Java, or any other Open Source license. However, Open Source licenses may not, in themselves, prohibit forking. That would be a prohibition on modification or distribution of the modifications, which is specificaly excluded in the Open Source definition.
What Sun can do is use a certification program and trademarks to enforce the Java definition. If you modify it, you can't call it Java(R) any longer, and you can't display their certification badge on your product's packaging and literature.
But seriously folks, Sun, whatever their motivation, is going in the right direction. Support them. Few believed them when they said they would open soffice, but they did. Let's give them some props.
Slashdot Mirror
...
Grain_of_salt grain = new Grain_of_salt(HUGE);
The guys context of the phrase "open source" is completely off in the article. He keeps refereing to it as though it were a product, not a mode of release.
"We're not adverse to full open source [for Java]. It's really what is the right model for that open source and where that model is for that life cycle," Paolini said.
...
"I can say that open source for Java is our goal."
...
"We've really taken a simple program language to a platform very quickly."
Come on folks! This sounds like a script that seeds press-releases with the latest buzzword. This guy seems to not understand what 'open source' means, and by the last comment, seems to be a little confused about Java - the language, and the JVM as a concept.
Either that or he was only talking to a bunch of know-nothing MBA's.
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
I think Sun really did both Javas a disservice by giving them both the same name and marketing them as one thing.
Java, the object oriented programming language that's like C++ done right, is a very nice language to program in and deserves to do well. Note that you can/could compile Java source into any target language you like, from x86 machine code to Java bytecode.
Java, the portable bytecode and virtual machine technology is a very useful technology for the network age and is completely unrelated to the programming language. Note that you can/could compile any high level manguage you like to Java bytecode (especially if GCC supports it) from Eiffel to C to Ada to Java.
So, we're left wondering which of these, if any, or both, Sun plans to "open source"...
--
Calling Java a "fork" of C++ because C++ preceeds it and has some things in common is patently ridiculous, and appropriation of features from other languages does not a fork make.
Don't forget that Java itself is basically just a specification for a language and a means of implementation. The stuff that Sun [ is | may be ] looking at open sourcing are their virtual machine and bytecode compilers (we assume).
The "forking danger" here is that a bunch of other organizations might simply decide they want to introduce new stuff to the language and say, "Okay. This is our version of Java. So there." Microsoft licensed the technology from Sun and proceeded to do just that, completely against the terms of the contract.
(Incidentally: John Heilemann writes a fantastic article about the Microsoft anti-trust suit in this month's Wired. He asked Steve Ballmer if Microsoft believed they were signing the contract in bad faith. His answer was a bit on the long and vitriolic side, but it seemed to boil down to, "Of course we were, and the sub-50 IQ people at Sun were morons if they didn't think so too." Yes, "sub-50 IQ" was his phrase.)
Would it be so bad if someone forked the code in that manner? Maybe not. But I suspect that plenty of people are twitchy about just that possibility, given the whole J++ fiasco.
Just make it Open Systems! If they made Java a completely Open System, designed by industry consensus and completely backward compatible with a publicly available spec, anyone could create a complete Java implementation, open source or not. This is far more important than availability of source, but then again Sun has been more against Open Systems than any of the UNIX vendors, historically.
"Java" can't be open sourced--it's a specification, not a program. So is he talking about releasing the source to their implementation (which would be largely worthless*) or about opening the spec up to everyone to modify like with RFC's (which would be awesome)?
My guess: Neither one. The guy was speaking at ApacheCon, he was just using "Open Source" as a buzzword. At best, we'll see the source code of some (not all) of their implementation.
*Obviously this would provide immediate help to projects like Kaffe, but it wouldn't be all that useful long-term.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
This is really just a reaction to C#. Rather than trying to submit Java to a standards body and let everyone make their own Java compilers (instead of Java - like compilers) Sun wants everyone to use Java on every platform - without putting forth the effort to port it to every platform themselves. But more importantly, they want everyone to use their compiler/runtime/etc
This may or may not happen, and it may or may not benefit them. But if it does happen, it can only benefit us.
-Adam
It's no match for Larry-Boy and his Super Suction ears!
"spluh, spluh, spluh, spluh, spluh"
How do you make a squeeking, suctioning sound in cyberspace?
Then they cannot use a GPL license. It's one thing for an editor like emacs to fork, another for a language to fork.
They must use a different license, where forking is somehow not allowed. I think that's understandable for a piece of software on which millions of other pieces of software are based, such as Java. Although they want it to grow and change quickly, they want it to stay in one version, if only to keep sanity in the ranks of millions of Java programmers (like myself). Can you imagine if someone came out with a Java++ with new features and incomplete support for new initiatives that came along?
Oh wait...
So I support Sun, as a Java programmer still. And I understand why a "pure" GPL license probably isn't the answer in this instance.
-Ben
What Sun can do is use a certification program and trademarks to enforce the Java definition. If you modify it, you can't call it Java(R) any longer, and you can't display their certification badge on your product's packaging and literature.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yeah, but without printing capabilities!
What's Java going to be missing, sockets?
But seriously folks, Sun, whatever their motivation, is going in the right direction. Support them. Few believed them when they said they would open soffice, but they did. Let's give them some props.