Slashdot Mirror


Sun Agrees to Talk to IBM over Open Sourcing Java

comforteagle writes "Sun has agreed to meet with IBM to further discuss the issue of open sourcing Java with them. 'Sun is closely evaluating the effectiveness of the process.' Could Sun be coming around to actually doing this?"

43 of 451 comments (clear)

  1. Not very important for me by Zo0ok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For my needs and preferences, Java is "free enough". Anyone who ever has turned Java down in favor of something else, because it is not free?

    1. Re:Not very important for me by ---- · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I prefer "Unencumbered Enough", "Flexible Enough", "Fast Enough", "Supported Enough" as enough reasons for choosing Java.

      Once chosen, I like how strict the OOP was, and the tools that are available.

      /* ---- */

    2. Re:Not very important for me by gusmao · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The question is not whether someone will or will not turn java down because it is not free, but how much more wildly adopted and improved the language and the VM can become.

    3. Re:Not very important for me by jocknerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If its not given a BSD-style license, but one closer to GPL, there shouldn't be a problem. Microsoft won't touch the GPL since they can't make it their own like they can with BSD code. So I doubt Microsoft would do anything with Java provided its using an open-source license which prevents it from being hijacked.

    4. Re:Not very important for me by BaronAaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Any fork from the Java specifications would simply not be Java anymore.

      I would imagine Sun would act as a gatekeeper if Java went open source. Anything code that breaks compatibility would not be included in the "offical" Java feed.

      As the grandfather post stated, this is more about portability than anything.

    5. Re:Not very important for me by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or it could get an original open office (or was it star) type license where non-compatible versions must be open source but if it is 100% compatible it can be closed.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Not very important for me by Shirov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, this is VERY IMPORTANT! I think the big advantage(s) of "open sourcing" java will be seen when things such as the mess with the logging API's and the use of the assert keyword are avoided.

      It is still a mystery to me why Sun developed their own logging API's when LOG4J was widely used and accepted.

      Hopefully a more open approach to Java would help projects that are housed at Jakarta and SourceForge actually make it into the JDK instead of sticking us with inferior rewrites.

      The logging API is just one example. Imagine if the JUNIT implementation of assert was used, and if SWT could be combined with Swing/AWT to create better/superior user interfaces. I think Java could grow in leaps and bounds with an open approach.

      Another good example of this would be the JDOM project. How long has it sat in the JCP? While in the meantime Sun implemented their own INFERIOR XML libraries.

      The JCP is too political, and needs to modified/done away with. Let the people decide the direction of JAVA!

      Just my .02

      --Ryan

    7. Re:Not very important for me by javaxman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have that.

      It's called the "Java Compatability Kit", and is what JVM implementations are tested against in licensing to get that spiffy Java logo. IMHO, they should be more strict about how well an implementation performs against the JCK, and include more graphical tests ( though of course those are the hard ones to write ).

      The key is you only see the JCK after you've agreed to license Java and paid some cash. That's the only *direct* way Sun makes money on Java. If you're asking them to give that up, I Sun's shareholders will have to ask you why, and what they're going to get in return... this will likely be what the IBM conversation consists of- how to give the JCK to one open-source implementation and still keep commercial ventures going to Sun for compatability certification.

    8. Re:Not very important for me by JPriest · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe if they chose GPL we could have as many JVM's as we do Linux distros.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    9. Re:Not very important for me by Arker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Both BSD and GPL offer the possibility to fork and create your own branch! Why would the license be an issue for this problem?

      Because the BSD license allows you to keep your fork secret, that's why. This allows someone like MS to come along and make a fork that puts the original at a disadvantage, and keep their changes secret (and/or patented) and effectively bar all the Free versions from being compatible. However, under the GPL they would have to publish their source, allowing the Free versions to quickly and relatively easily adapt to any such changes.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  2. Um. An? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Sun officials planned to meet with IBM as early as Thursday to discuss the merits of whether the company should work with IBM on an independent project to create an open-source implementation of Java.

    Wait... an .. implementation?

    Rick Ross, president of Javalobby Inc., of Cary, N.C., an association of Java developers with more than 100,000 members, said, "On the surface, Rod's reply indicates a clear willingness on IBM's behalf to invest in an independent, open-source Java implementation that would benefit everyone"

    What? Two Javas? This sounds weird. Obviously an open source implementation will grow and respond to demand rapidly and outpace something proprietary, yet it sounds like there will still be a proprietary version. Can anyone shed light on this? I'm confused.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  3. I think it only makes sense by robslimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As Sun has already stated (in response to criticisms) that they have no problem with someone working up an Open Source version, as long as the spec is adhered to. Now someone with serious manpower is offering to do exactly that.

    I'm not surprised at all. Quite pleased, actually.

    1. Re:I think it only makes sense by aled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that open sourced java means something different to everyone, thus most people rants about different things. Many are shouting the "open source good" mantra, without stoping to think what to open source or how (a language, an implementation, a licence, a platform?).

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  4. Just wondering by captain_craptacular · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't hate me, but has anyone ever thought that this might not be a *good* thing? As irrational as it sounds there are probably a number of companies out there who are using Java just because the PHB's have decided that since it's "owned" by a major company like Sun, it must be good/stable/etc... These same cover your arse PHB's may not like the fact that the language they depend on has no "official support"... I'm thinking of the type of boss who would deploy RH or SuSE but not Debian...

    --
    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
    1. Re:Just wondering by bc90021 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is likely why they would dual-license it, ala MySQL. The PHBs and the CXOs get a version that comes with Enterprise support that they pay for, and the Geeks get an open source free version that they can use that has no support.

      It's being done quite successfully with MySQL, so Sun would be remiss if they didn't at least explore their options. IBM has proven that they will support open source (as it furthers their ends as well), and doing this for Java would help with their server offerings as well.

      Really, I can't see how everyone won't win.

  5. Re:Um. An? by cynicalmoose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, there will be an open source java implementation, but you can bet your bottom dollar there will be better tools and IDEs for the closed version initially.

    Then there will be enough libre programmers to make decent libre IDEs etc, and the proprietary Java will wither away (and Sun with it).

    Though I hope Sun doesn't die, because they can stand up against Microsoft.

    --
    Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
  6. If done right... by brasten · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wow... despite my skepticism in previous posts, I do think this CAN be done and done right. I think it would be VERY smart to get IBM and Sun to work *extremely* closely on this. In much the same way IBM is defending Linux currently, Java would still need that corporate support to defend it against outside challenges.

    But, it could work...

  7. My guess would be that... by cnelzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Sun is attempting to buy some time and save face by stating that they will look into it with IBM, rather then ignore IBM and the OSS community by continuing their existing party-line.

    What they may attempt is to persuade IBM to understand their side and perhaps even join them in keeping Java a closed environment.

    It will be interesting to see how this will all turn out in the end.

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
  8. Stop beating up Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I hope that Sun does this someday, I really think that Eric and some others are out of line for beating up on Sun.

    Sun is in trouble... nothing is really working for them. The Opteron is going to kill the Sparc, and they don't make much money off software. They need to figure out ways to make money from what they're doing or they're going to go under and take a lot of really cool stuff with them when they do.

    I am personally an old fan of Sun. I think they're a great company. Their lukewarm support for SCO (I personally think they were just straddling the fence so they'd be on the winning side no matter what) is disturbing, but I understand their desire to stay out of the way of a litigous monstrosity like this. I want Sun to survive.

    Sun has done a great job with Java so far. If they had opened it in the beginning, it would have been embraced, extended, and extinguished by you-know-who and we'd now have Microsoft Java.NET for Windows. Cross-platform Java would be dead. Sun did the right thing, and have been great stewards over this wonderful technology.

    So, as we call for them to OSS Java, please keep their interests in mind. They deserve some reward for developing such a wonderful thing. We should not just blindly beat up on them for no reason, and we should keep in mind that IBM may have entirely selfish reasons for "leaning" on Sun here.

    (IBM has done the community some great favors, but that doesn't entitle them to some kind of blind religious allegence.)

  9. Mad Hatter by almaon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if this will have any impact on the development and direction of Mad Hatter, with IBM's ongoing journey to bring linux to a wider audience. These two companies in bed, in marriage, could produce some interesting offspring for Java and ultimately could very well trickle down to Mad Hatter.

    Could this venture open up doors for Mad Hatter to become a part of IBM's fleet of products? Any thoughts?

  10. Re:Um. An? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Then there will be enough libre programmers to make decent libre IDEs etc, and the proprietary Java will wither away (and Sun with it).

    This, aside from Sun withering away, is what I see, too. Or possibly worse, a fork. Anything added to the OSS that finds its way into Suns would likely fall under the GPL, how's Sun feel about that? Clearly Sun and IBM have some things to sort out.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  11. Crossing my fingers! by provoix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article - "Sun officials planned to meet with IBM as early as Thursday to discuss the merits of whether the company should work with IBM on an independent project to create an open-source implementation of Java."

    Well...perhaps they've seen the benefit of the OpenOffice project.

  12. Re:Um. An? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Neither company wants to release their own IP into an open source project. However, IBM providing the manpower, with Sun providing the specs, is a good combination for a new product.

    It benefits Sun because A) it keeps Free Software advocates off their backs, and B) it promotes the continuance of Java, a flagship product, and one of the ways they as a company become known to many others.

    It benefits IBM because it A) improves their image with the free software community, B) helps keep them in a leadership position for corporate attitude towards open source, C) it keeps investor opinion high.

  13. NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is NOT free enough because it cannot come by default with linux distros. License states that third parties cannot distribute java development kit. It will be free enough for me when I can do:

    apt-get install j2sdk-1.4.2

    Now it is not. Of course having source available and having the right to mofify and distribute your own version (f.e. optimized for athlon or modified to conform to debian-standards) of java would be a HUGE bonus, but it is not THAT necessary.

    --Coder

    1. Re:NOT free enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nice.

      You managed to incorporate Debian, Free software and apt get into one troll that the /. Crowd loved. I'm going to save this to post any time anything concerning Java comes up. Know what else should be free, Hookers. I won't be happy until I can get free hookers at the local Salvation Army.

    2. Re:NOT free enough by Joseph+Lam · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slackware 9.1 comes pre-installed with Sun's JDK 1.4....is it in violation or what?

    3. Re:NOT free enough by pyros · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sections i and ii of the license clause you quote state that you can't distribute the jre/jsdk without an aditional product. So companies who care about such legal issues, like Red Hat, have to write some java app and distribute that, and have the jre/jsdk be included in that package. They would have to make it a part of every package which depended on it. I suppose they could keep two versions of each package which needs it, and the first package would get the fat version. In turn subsequent packages would see that it is installed and get the thin version instead.

      But they can't distribute the jre/jsdk by itself.

  14. Quite important for me by qortra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I use Debian, and generally speaking, if it isn't free enough for Debian, it isn't free enough for me. Beyond my hatred for the lack of JRE in the main unstable tree (which is really annoying), there is also an ethical ideal of truly free software that is being violated by Java.

    Many people believe RMS is too hardcore about sticking to his guns on this issue, but I do believe he has a good point. Many programs are "free" for temporary use, and Java is one of them. Other examples of superficially free software are Windows Media Player and Adobe Acrobat, for which there are no guarantees of future freedom. These programs, like Java, introduce standards and structure that other people build on. If the freedom of these platforms was to be compromised, many poeple could stand to lose a great deal of work. The only way to guarantee the possibility of future support is to open source it.

    1. Re:Quite important for me by v01d · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only way to guarantee the possibility of future support is to open source it.

      That's not true. The API's are fully documented and there is nothing preventing their implementation. Those API's are decided on by the JCP which is a community process.

      Open sourcing Java would give people an implementation, it would not significantly affect the characteristics of the language. I don't see the openness of Java being significantly different than that of C/C++/C#/Ada; the languages are tightly controlled by a small group with anyone free to implement the standard to whatever extent.

      What is the difference between the relationship of Java to the JCP and C to ANSI? You and I can't directly influence either; but we are free to implement either language.

  15. Open Source by jefu · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'd have thought that Sun might have learned something about opening source by now. NeWS, the rather radical window system that sun built in the late 80's probably failed mostly because it was kept proprietary (at least many who used it thought so). When X was openly and freely available, it was tough for even the excellent technical solution NeWS was to compete.

    <offtopic>
    Does anyone know if there are implementations of NeWS available as open source now? Has anyone working on one of the "X Is Icky - I have a Better Way" window systems looked at NeWS for a model? Enquiring minds (however enfeebled) want to know.
    </offtopic>

  16. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This could lead to some extremely good things.

    Unfortunately, the only downside is that ESR is going to try to take credit for it, and he will be insufferable after this.

  17. Re:Um. An? by Wateshay · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, the best Java IDE is already free (in all senses).

    --

    "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

  18. Two Java's by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In fact, we are talking about JVM's, not the language itself.

    The Java language specification is already avaliable in the open, just like the JVM spec. This means that anybody could write a complete java implementation, open source. The open source version could not evolve faster than the Sun spec(because it would not be a real JVM then), but the optimization and bug-tracking processes could go faster (if it gets the same kind of support Apache has).

    What is interesting here is that Sun would participate directly.

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
  19. OpenSource susbtitute of agreement between company by nereid666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It si very interesting to listen how one company talks with another in order to achieve the liberation of a technology and asking to release it as opensource. I think it is a revolution, years ago one company made a deal with another under propiertary licenses.
    Do they arrive to a private deal? Or they arrive to a deal with the benefit of everyone, in opensource-way?

    --
    Damia
  20. Re:Took them long enough by Albanach · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I gotta think that Java operates at a loss for them

    Really? Have you looked at a mobile phone recently? Every new phone comes with Java. That suggests almost every new phone means a royalty payment to Sun. Mobile phone sales are back on the up thanks to mobile multimedia content - mostly delivered through Java. I suspect Sun are raking it in.

  21. Yay! by Gorath99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really hope this works out. Not because "free as in beer" isn't good enough for me (it is), but because it'll help focus the Java community.

    We want Java's greatest supporters on one line, so they can face the growing competition of C# instead of bickering among themselves about whose VM/Gui toolkit/IDE/Compiler is the best.

    Getting an OSS Java is just a nice bonus.

  22. Java / .NET / Strict OOP by DelawareBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OOP is only as good as the designer. Any of the OOP languages (Java, C# , VB.NET (gasp) to name a few) can still have a clueless idiot make a God class. Conversely, you can "simulate" inheritance, polymorphism, etc. in procedural languages as well. U of Delaware has a Scheme class where this is often done.

  23. why? by kpharmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure Sun's in trouble - they optimized their business for the dot-coms, took advantage of the hype, and now everyone's far more interested in cheap than sexy.

    But even their sexy servers aren't all that attractive anymore as the intel line gains more ground on them. And really, the the only reason for buying 24+ way SMPs was due to limitations in oracle clustering. And now they're moving away from that.

    Java's fine - if you like heavy, ponderous languages. A few years ago I worked at a system integrator and performed a study of our productivity - it actually took us longer to create an application in J2EE/Oracle in 2002 than it did in CICS/DB2 in 1987. The only good thing I can say about java is that I suppose it's better for large application development than c or c++, and it runs on more platforms than .net. And I suppose it's just about the only language being taken seriously for large application development on open systems today.

    So, now what's Sun left with? Overpriced hardware and cumbersome software. Should we be deferential with them because of all that they've done for us? Please - they spin so much hype it's disgusting, and their sales team is almost as sleazy as that of sybase or oracle.

  24. Too little? by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably too little, too late

    When there are conventions of 25,000 Mono developers, ala JavaOne, you can talk about Java being "too little."

  25. Read the Article Closely by MeauxToo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IBM is urging Sun to create an open-source implementation of Java, not necessarily open source its current implementation. Sun's current Java implementation is loaded with tweaks and advanced features (generational garbage collection, HotSpot, etc) that would not be available in such a scenario. The open-source community developing this new implementation would have to develop these features on their own or hope that Sun will donate some or all of their work out the goodness of their heart.

    As such, this move by IBM doesn't seem to have any short-term beneift. Furthermore, IBM isn't pushing this new open-source implementation to be the implementation of choice. Instead, they are saying that like the J2EE specs, there should be a free and open-source implementation of the J2SE specs. Whoopie.

  26. Money by TooTechy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From a financial standpoint, and let's face it, that is from where IBM is talking, IBM stand to gain everything from an open source Java.

    Fair's fair IBM. If Sun offers Java then perhaps you should volunteer WebSphere!

  27. Too Free? by cheezit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Believe it or not, there are corporate IT shops that shy away from anything open-source---even if you can show a support contract. In a place like that, any movement of Java to open-source is a negative, not a positive. And since those shops are exactly where Java is popular, Sun is not stupid to go slow.

    These corporate IT shops think they have leverage over the big-$$ vendors by virtue of the fat checks that they can hold back (sometimes true, sometimes not). No check, no leverage, no support.

    The reality is that much of IT is about budgets, not technology. Senior managers still work with money long after whatever technical skills they had are gone, so that's the club they use on vendors.

    --
    Premature optimization is the root of all evil
  28. IBM virtual machines by roca · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work at IBM. I've been authorized to say the following to clear up a few misconceptions:

    IBM has 3 systems that can execute Java programs:
    - The oldest JVM is the base for the current generation of products and is derived from Sun code, but contains significant changes to the JIT and garbage collector. See
    https://www6.software.ibm.com/dl/lxdk/lxdk-p
    - A newer product JVM (internally called J9) was developed from an IBM code base. See http://www.ibm.com/software/wireless/wme/features. html
    - A third (Jikes RVM) has been developed principally for research use and is written in Java. It is an existing open source project that uses GNU Classpath libraries and is popular with JVM researchers. It is not complete, mostly because Classpath is not complete. It is capable, with only the Classpath libraries, of running substantial programs such as Eclipse. See http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/jikesrvm/