Slashdot Mirror
Open Source is out of the Java process
Yogidabear writes: "According to the Apache group, Open Source has been officially locked out of the Java process with JSR 99 (Java Specification Participation Agreement). The article on the Jakarta site notes that IBM in particular voted against this JSR and many others noted that they were not happy with the stance Sun was taking against Open Source. What does this mean for the Open Source community as it relates to Java? And, better yet, what does this mean for Java?"
I thought Jakarta was Sun's official (partial) J2EE reference implementation.
:-(
What are Sun up to? They are going to alienate a lot of people. Like me. Not that they care about me
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
This is just going to make it harder for Java to proliferate.
They have basically done what they claim the are trying to avoid. By limiting the ability of Open Source developers to develop/test/validate there solution implementations Sun is locking itself into a situation where the Java implementation will be come a fragmented mess of proprietary implemenetations that all differ from specifications just a little bit because it is a feature that the vendor thought would be neat!
To boycott the following companies, who voted to exclude Open Source:
Would anyone care to explain what's going on? The Jakarta article doesn't state what exactly locks OS out (and out of what), and the linked "requirements" page, well, mentions requirements, but not how they are not met.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Let's face it. Java's worst enemy is not Microsoft. It's Sun. It's true that Microsft did a pretty good job of screwing up Java. But they didn't do it out of malice or greed. The folks in Redmond simply suffer from the arrogant believe that only they know how to architect software platforms -- and so do the folks in Menlo Park.
How exactly are things going to become a mess of proprietary implementations?
Commercial products will continue to get certification because people want it.
Some open source products will get certification.
Uncertified open source products are pretty much ignored until they have a solid track record. People are afraid to use the proprietary ones because if the project bogs down, you're fucked. It's not a mistake you make twice.
I'd much rather see the money going towards making the reference implementations not suck than towards paying the license or testing fees for a particular group. A hell of a lot more people benefit from a good reference than any particular reimplementation.
Sun, TI, Nokia, HP, Borland, Fujitsu, and IONA all voted 'yes' without comment.
And the fact that Sun voted Yes with no comment speaks volumes.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Or, they believe that the advantages of the changes made so far outweigh the disadvantage of staying with the current agreement.
Also, the Sun site refers to Tomcat as "an implementation of the Java Servlet 2.3 and JSP 1.2 specifications." Not "the reference implementation". I haven't looked at the servlets or server pages lately, but I worked at Sun they had an in-house reference implementation. But Javasoft reference implementations do not have a good rep, and presumably the Apache implementation is much better. Which is why Sun would rather distribute Tomcat with the J2EE SDK.
Except they want to do it as part of the Sun "community process". Which Sun seems to consider sufficiently like Open Source to satisfy everybody. Alas, it only seems to satisfy Sun.
Obviously the Apache folks like working with Sun, but don't like their attitude towards Open Source. Hence the current hassle.
On 11-Mar-2002, Apple voted YES with the following comment: Apple fully supports the issues that have been raised by Apache and others, but the new JSPA represents a good step forward relative to the current one. We believe taking this to community review may provide the input that is needed to refine the JSPA before it goes to public review. During the community review, we would like to work with the PMO to refine the JSPA to better reflect the needs of those participating in open source efforts.
On 11-Mar-2002, HP voted YES with no comment.
On 11-Mar-2002, Borland voted YES with no comment.
On 11-Mar-2002, Fujitsu voted YES with no comment.
On 11-Mar-2002, Oracle voted YES with no comment.
*** On 11-Mar-2002, Macromedia voted NO with the following comment: The free and creative spirit of the JCP should be directly and clearly manifested and protected legally. The major objections from the open source community argue that this is not the case, and we feel that the current language does not directly quell these concerns. We would like to see the issues that Apache raises on behalf of the open source community resolved in the JSPA itself before moving forward.
*** On 11-Mar-2002, BEA voted NO with the following comment: After considerable soul searching, BEA has decided to vote NO on this revision of the JSPA. While considerable effort has been exerted by all concerned and significant progress has been made, we still are not convinced that this JSPA would provide the level playing field we have long advocated for Java technologies. The concerns voice by Apache and the open source community is one avenue of concern as is the autocratic power that continues to be vested in spec leads enabling them to attempt mischief to obtain competitive advantage by controlling both the pace of innovation and the availability of that innovation to the marketplace. Unless and until these issues can be satisfactorily addressed, we prefer to stick with our current agreements.
On 11-Mar-2002, Caldera voted YES with the following comment: Caldera agree with a lot of the concerns expressed by Apache. We would like to see more to be done to protect the interests of open source providers.
*** On 11-Mar-2002, Compaq voted NO with the following comment: Compaq shares Apache's concerns and IBM's concerns that the JSPA proposed revision provides insufficient protection for interests of open source providers and competitors (as enumerated at http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html) . Compaq must therefor vote no on this proposed revision
On 11-Mar-2002, IONA voted YES with no comment.
On 09-Mar-2002, Doug Lea ABSTAINED FROM VOTING with the following comment: I share most of Apache's concerns. However, I also think that it would be useful to open this up to the scrutiny of all JCP members, not just the EC. These two factors cancel themsleves out, hence I abstain.
On 08-Mar-2002, Nokia Networks voted YES with no comment.
*** On 06-Mar-2002, IBM voted NO with the following comment: IBM has consistently worked within the Java Community Process since its very inception to create a truly open environment with a level playing field where no single vendor has the ability to exert unnecessary control over Java technologies for their own proprietary advantage. While the current draft of the JSPA is an improvement over prior agreements, we believe we should do more to guarantee specifications, implementations and test suites developed under this agreement will be developed with a broader view of Java communities in mind, and to guarantee they are licensed under terms and conditions that allow the widespread adoption of compliant Java technologies. The JSPA amendments proposed under JSR 99 do not provide these guarantees.
IBM has always believed it is absolutely critical the Java community include Apache as well as the rest of the open source community in order to ensure the long term health and competitive vitality of the Java environment. As a result, IBM is fully supportive of the open source community's need for Sun resolve all the issues raised by Apache at http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html directly and unambiguously in the JSPA agreement itself.
*** On 05-Mar-2002, Apache voted NO with the following comment: Apache is unsatisfied the JSPA revision provides sufficient protection for our interests (as enumerated at http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html) . While we and others
have worked long and hard on the JSPA revision and believe we have
made progress from the previous JSPA, we cannot support a legal
agreement which does not unequivocably satisfy these requirements.
On 05-Mar-2002, Sun voted YES with no comment.
.sig
I think Sun Java and the JCP is beyond hope. Open source developers should either define their own core "Java" implementation and libraries that discards most of the overly complex and Sun proprietary stuff, or just join up with the Mono project (Microsoft is no better than Sun, but Mono is producing a fully open source implementation of C#, and that's what counts).
not all can share the same opinion. But it's good that the decision process is done in public and including explicitly a phase of public feedback.
I'm not getting angry at Sun. They put it a lot of effort into Java and their actual standpoint is - allthough taking a step backwards - somewhat understandable.
Now is the time to participate. Let's not burry our heads in the sand but cast our votes as software developers. I will use the opportunity and object the draft during the following public review. Open Source Software is a must in the 21st century, playing the same role for the computer industry as academic freedom was for science.
And if a large enough number and the majority of us developers is taking a similiar position _and_ participating actively in the public review, the members of the JCP cannot ignore it. We are their potential customers as well as partner in this.
No need to give up too early.