Slashdot Mirror
McNealy Answers: No Open Source Java
comforteagle writes "Sun CEO Scott McNealy has finally answered the long awaited question that has been on the minds of open source and Java developers. Will Sun open source Java? No. He stated today that Sun sees no solution solved from open sourcing Java that isn't already addressed."
When pressed about his decision, Scott McNealy admitted, "Well, we were going to open source Java until we realized that the phrase 'open source' is really more of a noun than a verb."
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
If you don't open source it, how can we fork it?
But seriously folks...
God strike me down for saying it, but he's right. Java as a core language is fine. It's libraries are decent. What's more, it is infinitely extensible through the addition of third party libraries.
Why would you need an open source Java?
I have been pwned because my
http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/25400-1.html
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM
I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
Look at perl for example. Do you think it would be where it is today if it were closed source? It would probably be some hack that about 2 guys use. But no, it's on the standard distribution of just about any UNIX-like OS out there, and many websites use mod perl with Apache to get some great results (including /.)...
Imagine where Java would be if it were open sourced. I think that most desktop software could even be developed for Java and run the same on any platform. No more Microsoft monopoly. You could buy a program and run it on OS X, Linux, Windows, or whatever. How? By being open sourced, it would probably become so efficient and powerful that nobody would want to waste their time natively compiling stuff for this system or that.
Yeah man, he's making a big mistake.
Though he claims to see no solution that would be solved by open sourcing Java, is there harm in doing so? If not, it seems to me that they may as well open source it, perhaps there is something to be gained that they cannot predict. Who knows?
It doesn't need to be open source to be good.
It is sad that they don't want to open up java, but really, in the end, it comes down to business strategy. And at this point in time, it just doesn't make good business sense for Sun to throw away their last trump card.
Sun has quite a history of inventing new interfaces, then abandoning them because competing open standards achieved more traction in the marketplace. If they're not careful, C# will do exactly that.
So once again the question comes up... Is Sun a hardware company or software company? They sure aren't doing hot in either arena...
How would opening the source up benefit Sun ? It would obviously benefit the open source community and give Sun their respect, but Sun is out to make profit, and even in the long run I don't see how they can make more money. Besides, Sun knows java best, granted, open source developers could make improvements but people are going to use java regardless. Only until a new bit-code type programming language with the cross-platforming capabilities of java and a substantial amount of users, will Sun consider releasing the source. Sun is out to make money, not win friends, and I don't think they will loose many customers because they aren't releasing their source.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
We are all free to use one of a dozen open source Java virtual machines (GCJ, Kaffe, Jikes RVM, etc) and the GNU Classpath java libraries. So what's the problem, exactly?
In the other world, there's Novell who seems to be doing a lot of OSS-hugging lately. I believe SUSE's YAST is going open along with a few of Novell's very own formerly closed-source stuff. Sure, they may not be opening up the keys to the kingdom (not sure if they are or not) but at least they're visibly cooperating with the Open Source community.
SUN still contributes to OO.org stuff so we can't really rip them on that. However, they remain at the very least lukewarm to OSS. They offer Linux because their customers ask for it, they say. They package a Java Desktop where the word "Java" seems a bit out of place...I think banking on name recognition more than anything else. They killed off the cobalt servers. Just not very Open Source-friendly as far as their PR campaign seems to be going.
Open Source Java? A stern no is the answer. I guess they'll still need to hang on to something while the boat sinks. Might as well be a cup of strong hot coffee.
Unix will be back. Really, it will! Everything is beautiful! Don't worry! Be happy! Customers will return to Solaris one day! After all, if schwartz said it, it must be true.
and even scott is a believer:
The "fad will wear off, and big business will come back to solaris".
Sun, don't worry, everything is great. Everybody else should wake up and smell the java.
As much as I'd hate to admit it, this is probably a good thing.
We would probably end up having a dozen versions of Java out there, and various "java distributions" - and there would be no particular standard. There would be a pseudo-standard enforced by Sun, and say, IBM - but there is nothing to stop Microsoft to go ahead and make a non-standard version of it and popularize it.
Okay, now Java is not going to be Opensource - but does that preclude IBM contributing to Java in any way at all?
One of the big problems with Java is the license. Here are some issues that real people have faced:
1.) RedHat couldn't put a JVM in their desktop OS w/out including the Java license in anaconda and having the end user agree to it at install time. As a result, RedHat couldn't set up Netscape and Mozilla to run Java applets seamlessly and out of the box.
2.) FreeBSD couldn't include Sun's JDK in the ports tree out-of-the-box. An admin pays $$$ for cut CDs or spends time to download ISOs so that they don't have to do a network install. When they find go to build Java on FreeBSD they are told by the ports tree to go "agree to Sun's license and download the JDK from http://java.sun.com/blah/blah/blah". Not only is it annoying to have to download an extra component that isn't included on the ISO, it leaves a poor taste in the admins mouth for Java. And come on - admins are the last people developers want to irritate.
I can understand Sun's position with not open sourcing Java. Although relatively uninformed on the topic, I don't see any prevailing reason to make it open source - there are open source implementations of the JDK other than Sun's - go with them. But for cripes sake change the farking license.
It is a sad sad statement that I, as an enterprise java developer of 6 years, am unable to get applets to work appropriately on my Linux desktop.
Do it for da shorties
Why do people think making something Open Source is unanimously good? Indeed, in this case I think Open Sourc-ing Java would be a bad move. Java has a slew of sattelite ecosystems and things that are portrayed as "technologies" themselves. I think Java desperately needs a backbone on which those entites can rely on for stability. In fact I think this is why Java is a little too popular. Now days you cannot get a Java project without being required know J2EE, JNDI, JABC, JDEF, JJJ, and fifteen other acronyms. The whole thing has become an exercise in marketing. Now factor in the coup de gras of different permutations created by Open Source people and you're thuroughly confusing the situation.
Incedentally, isn't it strange how the Java API can evolve so much and yet despite the holes in POSIX no one has even considered changing it.
By all means, ask for x86 support. But DON'T KILL SUN. Now is not the time to ask for Java to be open sourced. It would be a good thing, however, to extract from them, some promise that as Java evolves, some earlier version can be open-sourced.
McNealy's wrong. Open source Java is knocking at the door. And worse yet, it will run on Mono not a JVM!
Let's all use .net, instead!
That'll show them.
Note for the sarcasm-impaired: Move along, now.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If sun followed the linux model - and key engineers at sun reviewed each change and made sure that it was ok to add to the release, and followed through everything openly, then it would work.
Your argument doesn't hold water. Where are all the forks of linux? Just because its a language does not mean it will fork and fracture. Perl isn't forked to hell. Nor is python. Nor are many open source languages.
If sun truly believed in open source (and I don't believe they do), then this would be a great step forward for them.
And McNealy's challenge to IBM to open source db2 is silly too; sun makes no money from selling java licenses (duh, they're free), where as IBM does make money from db2.
C# and MSIL have a free implementation. Whether this qualifies those technologies as "open" or not depends on your definition of "open."
...no Open-Source SUN Java.
People being impatient have already generated GCJ and Kaffe working on open-source implementations of Java. Neither are yet as complete as the 'full' Java, but are in progress.
Is there a 'standard' for the Java language itself, in the same way that there is for "C#"? If not, could it be because Sun doesn't want to make it easier for Open-Source folks to create a complete implementation?...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
What is the business case for Sun open sourcing Java? Try as I might, I can't think of any strong reasons for it.
One might argue that open sourcing the JVM and/or the Java standard libraries might be useful to allow people to create their own distributions for their specific platform, rather than doing a complete rewrite. I can see that being useful for platforms that aren't a priority for Sun.
The question is, though how would Sun make money from any of this (mind you, I doubt they make any money from it right now). Can anyone explain how Sun could benefit from open sourcing Java?
If Sun suddenly dies (as many have been doing in the industry), who is left to maintain the code?
Don't say "Oh that won't happen." We've heard that before -- and it did. The question now is alot of their code "who's going to maintain/support it?"
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
You forget the fact that companies that have vested interests in killing Java *cough* a certain Seattle based company *cough* could use this against Java.
.Net? Microsoft has everything to gain by killing it - it would only more people to use their platform.
I'm NOT starting a flame war here - but Microsoft does not really consider Perl or Python to be a serious contender as Java.
What do you think really inspired Visual Studio
Right now, Java gives people the freedom of platform - if in any way killing it or changing it in a way that makes it beneficial to MSFT, they WILL do it.
I've been working in an all-Java shop for close to 5 years now. One of the big headaches with Sun is the unenthusiastic response to some of the more obscure problems/bugs in the core API (especially around socket handling from what I've seen). Sun gives them low priority because they only affect sophisticated applications (touching rarely used parts of the API) where workarounds might be available. Man, there's a pointless stack trace dump in the HTML parser that's been annoyimg me for at LEAST 3 years. Some of these bugs have literally been out there for years. That would never fly in the open source community.
Of course, I can see their point of view also. Java is Sun's creation and giving it away does lose them a shiny badge of honor, since they wouldn't be able to market Java success as their own. And, open source APIs tend to advance so quickly that not-so-old APIs become obsoleted and incompatible. Open sourcers tend to be up to date with versioning, but this can become a big problem in corporate settings where a customer demands Java version X.1 for their environment, but your product ships with Java version X.2 (or vice versa). Java has essentially been backwards compatible since it's inception, disregarding the new classes.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The parent is right. Other languages don't become fractured. That's because they have standards, often international ones, not because they're not open. If Sun were worried about fracturing, they'd submit java to a standards organization (like ANSI). But they haven't. They want to keep complete control over Java. They can change it whenever they want and keep the source.
Notice how TrollTech released a new free version of Qt Windows just about the time that KDE got their win32 port of the X11 source into a really advanced state? Not that it does much good on the ActiveX side of things, but I digress.
Or how about OpenMotif coming out just about the time the Hungry Programmers got LessTif pretty much finished?
I'm guessing that Java will be open sourced to the point where the distros can carry it...when and if the pressure from the free swing implementations and the GPL native java implementations mature, and the pressure from MS C#/dotNET and Mono efforts really start to gain momentum.
That's fine, Mr. McNealy. Go ahead and ignore the competition. But history has shown you're gonna lose control of java completely, sooner or later. By waiting, all you do is waste the time of the developers working on Mono, C#, Gnu java, Gnu Swing, etc...when they could be improving your product for free, and all the while poking a sharp stick in the eye of Bill Gates. This is a missed opportunity.
Still, you have to like Mr. McNealy. I think it was Linux expo 2001 when I heard him describe the merger between HP and Compaq as "...a head-on collision between two slow moving garbage trucks". That was prety damn funny. He's got his moments of leadership and clarity, so I guess that's why he heads up Sun Micro.
Holding back technology from the masses, hoping that the EU decision will help you come up with some type of closed model for domination (if that's what you are doing) is not quite as funny.
What is the real goal here? Maintaining enough control of the platform to insure a set of MS-compatibility libraries will be guaranteed to work with it, somehow restricted to your licensing schemes, without having to worry too much about the criticism of GNU/Hippies?
I can't really see what Sun has to gain from open-sourcing Java either.
The open-source community is more than capable of building it's own Java clone e.g. Kaffe and supporting Java technologies e.g. gcj if it wants to, and Sun have every right to hold onto their Java implementation, if they feel it best suits their business goals.
I know I am quite happy using the Java packages provided by Sun and IBM, and agree with McNealy in that IBM should shut their mouth about open source Java unless they are prepared to open source their technologies as well.
Sun is most likely concerned, and rightly so, about the prospect of IBM pulling an 'Eclipse' on the core JVM.
IBM is a ruthless, anti-competitive mega-corporation, and it is easy to forget that in light of the SCO debacle etc., where they are portrayed as the good guys.
I dont think the community at large has any real stake in this particular battle - The Java standards are open, we are free to implement them in whatever way we see fit. If you want to see open source Java, then support the open source Java efforts like Kaffe, and leave Sun alone.
Normally, i'm quite a Sun-detractor, but I think in this case, they are being unfairly beaten up on about an issue that is quite clearly a non-issue.
If you want Java you can get it for free, and if you want to implement a VM that runs Java code, you are also free to do that, supported by detailed information and specification by Sun.
I doubt most of the people baying for blood over this issue would have any interest in improving Java were it to be released as open source, and it's not like there arent plenty of existant open source Java-related projects that couldn't do with your help anyway.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Remember the recent lawsuit over this exact issue of MS "extensions" of Java? In January 2001 MS settled that suit. Companies don't settle suits they're likely to win. Making Java open source would simply void the settlement. Check out this site: http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/
McNealy is a wise CEO not to give the competition the tools to destroy his company.
So, I guess the .NET C# competition is already contained by, by, by what?
Someone else has provided links to the discussion from Havoc Pennington on the future of the Linux desktop. Havoc is discussing the alternatives. And none is very satisfactory. Open-Sourcing Java would have a catalystic effect and would solve OUR problem. But, maybe Scott just doesn't care because he is thinking he has finally found a way to dominate the desktop market and we are supposed to sit-down, wait, see and applaude!
Achille Talon
Hop!
Python, Perl, Ruby, gcc, Gnome, KDE, the Linux kernel, GNU tools, etc.
Oh yeah, going nowhere because the Free and open source development model has stifled development.
Now wash your hands.
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
Oh Lord. How is this Insightful? The Linux desktop was this ][ close to becoming irrelivant. Novell and Sun (of all companies) have revitalized the Linux desktop with SuSE and the release of the Java Desktop. Now, I agree, the name is stupid, but having installed many of Linux distrubutions in the past, I'm happy to spend the $50 to see what Sun's attempt looks like (granted, it's YaST2, but hey).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, they've impressed the hell out of me. Redhat's been trying for years to do what Sun did in probably months.
I guess it remains to be seen how secure their distribution of a distribution ends up being, if people take it seriously enough, that is.
Sometimes it's nice to pay to play. And for this price, more power to them!
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
And I speak from experience on Netbeans . After spending significant time developing a module because Forte was not going to open source it. After significant effort duplicating the functionality in Netbeans because we did not have that capability, after rewriting most of the code from scratch with some refactoring previous efforts... they open sourced the project.
My wasted time... A lost project...
Don't get me wrong I still think Netbeans is a fine project but just goes to show consistency in making dumb decisions.
Also, I do think IBM has more to gain in this than Sun has.
Big blue is the enemy of my enemy but that does not make it my friend.
How does disabling java in your browser more secure? Last I checked Java Applets are in a sandbox and cannot hurt the system.
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
Personally, it's no surprise to me that Java will never be open sourced -- as far as I can tell, McNealy is doing his best to drive the company into the ground.
There are numerous licenses in existence that would allow Sun to maintain their closed source product that probably would not be against RedHat policy.
.so file into your browser (rarely do the already compiled .so files line up with your browser version), put out a dozen or so different sub releases (JDK 1.4.2_03 build 13? come on...), and then watch with confused looks on their faces as Flash takes over the world of client side GUI development.
I think the crux of the issue with RedHat is that:
a.) Sun wants you to download Java only from Sun
b.) RedHat wants to redistribute Java via the RedHat end user license.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't understand why Sun can't just let "other people" (RedHat, FreeBSD, etc) distributed their binary code without checking in at Sun.com first.
As a java developer who earns an income based upon Java's success, I really want to see Java succeed on the desktop because it opens up more development avenues for me and other java developers. And I think that Sun has an interest in java succeeding on the desktop as well (their Java Desktop would seem to indicate this). With technologies like Flash that are so nice looking, so easy to install, and lots of times already integrated on your platform - you would think that Sun would be doing __everything_in_its_power__ to help foster the growth of java on the desktop.
I would think Java would be out there lobbying Dell and Compaq pumping them to install WebStart on their desktops. Or put in an up-to-date JRE into IE. Or . . . put in a stinking applet viewer into the Mozilla that ships with the Linux distro most commodity users install.
But they don't. Instead they sit back, come up with a dozen or so mime-types that represent a Java Applet, make it prohibitively difficult to install the correct
Come on Sun. Wake up! I want java to succeed on the desktop as much as you do. You guys clearly haven't figured out how to make Java pervasive - maybe us assclowns at home can figure it out. Just give up the EULA rights to Java so that one of us can figure out how to do, patch it into a vanilla distro (like Fedora), and let you reach the end users you've failed to reach since you came up with applets years ago.
There's nothing like knowing a solvable problem exists that you can't even begin to troubleshoot because some asshat lawyer somewhere wants you to sign their EULA instead of the one from another company (which is frequently the same stinking one).
Do it for da shorties
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sun does make money from Java. They license certification tools so that people can claim 100% Pure Java Certified and use the java logo. They make money from licensing the source code, they make money from licensing distribution rights for the JRE and JDK.
While you can distribute the JRE, you can only do so if you aren distributing it for the purpose of running your application.
You cannot distribute the JDK unless you pay for that right.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Java is open in a way that we can only dream of windows being open. It's not controlled by a single entity, it's APIs are excellently documented, and anyone can build a functionally identical replacement.
Ultimately the reference compiler, VM and supporting libraries are not open source - but they are just the reference ones. Nothing stops people from making a truly open source version ala blackdown.
Sun's rate of 'new features' has been more methodical enterprise-paced than the typical open source project, but it's coming along. Check out J2SE1.5 it's got strongly typed enumerations, generics, an extended for syntax and various other much appreciated features.
I think a very stable reference platform is one of the best things Java has going for it. Ever tried to get a perl script with more than 2 or 3 dependencies to run on your webhosts box...?
...based on liberal open source licences
So can we drop this whole thing now? We should be worried much more about .Net/C#/Mono infecting Linux than Java not being distributed with it.
Surely you see that this is the crux of the matter. If Java were Free, then it could become a core language for GNOME development and have a reasonable shot at competing with, if not stemming the oncoming tide of Mono.
Personally, I don't care which one wins (but I hope that one of them -- or Python! -- does). This is just a nail in the coffin on Java's future as an major player on the Linux desktop (which could have united two large Open Source communities).
MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
Is it some kind of private fork of GCJ? Or does it work like Kaffe?
I'm confused.
I guess you could reverse-engineer kissme or SableVM, if you had to... but why bother making or using a proprietary JVM, when there are so many good (and improving!) free ones?
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
I read this as SUN forbidding Debian to package their JVM in a Debian package.
do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software
This would mean Debian wouldn't be allowed to ship with gcj, Jikes RVM, JRockit, Kaffe or whatever. To me it sounds quite unreasonable for SUN to want to be able to veto what can go into Debian.
defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software
So SUN wants Debian to pay their legal fees? Silly Debian for not wanting to do that.
To me these terms sound quite unreasonable, I know I wouldn't want to adhere to them if I could decide what went into Debian.
Installed the Bubblemon yet?
Okay, look. There just isn't any point to having an open source Sun JVM.
.NET? To a barely-operable Mono or the much-hated Microsoft? I don't think so.
* The specs are open (the big problem with MS is that they work hard to make it a pain in the ass for anyone to make compatible software).
* The specs are all that should be needed. There is *tons* of open source software out there that is RFC-compliant. Guess what? The RFCs don't come with free, public domain reference implementations. They just describe a standard. For *decades*, people have been quite happy with a nice open standard. Who needs the source?
* Sun's JVM is good, but not great. There are lots of people working on JVMs out there -- there is *no lack* of open source JVMs. There must be at least thirty JVMs out there, not counting variations produced by a single company. AFAIK, IBM's JVM is the highest-performance thing out there (for Linux at least) and if we're demanding that something be open-sourced based on the fact that it's really good, I'd like to see IBM open-source theirs.
* It works fine. We have had no problems with the current system. Sun has not tried to leverage their JVM to screw people over, and I don't see how or why they'd do so in the future.
* There is no good alternative. What are people going to threaten Sun with, switching to
* There is a good set of tools to support Java out there.
* There are open-source alternatives that will probably take over eventually anyway. GCJ is slowly moving along. Why, aside from some kind of symbolism, do people care about using Sun's JVM? Just let GCJ get up to speed and get nice native-code Java builds. Instead of trying to beg for favors from Sun, why not work on GCJ? Sun probably spent more developing the language, docs, and marketing Java than they do developing their particular JVM implementation, anyway.
Given a choice between having Sun's JVM open source or not...yeah, sure, I'd prefer to have it open source. But if I really can't stand using a closed one, I can download Kaffe or one of the other JVMs on freshmeat. I'm not going to avoid Java because one JVM happens to be closed-source. If I avoid Java, it would be for high resource usage and issues with the language, not for some silly political issue.
May we never see th
Except for some extreme cases (cell phones, embedded hardware, etc) where Python won't do, why would you want to use Java where Python applies?
Python is a far more productive language than Java, even if it executes slower. For the small parts of code where execution performance is an issue, you can use Pyrex or C or hell, even Java. But why use Java for the larger part of the program?
Also note the Python VM is smaller, lighter and starts up more quickly.
Even in terms of portability/compatibility, it seems that Python is better on many platforms (Windows, GNU, and a few more).
This naswer from McNealy should surprise no one. McNealy has never been a fan of or actively cooperated with any initiative that didn't give Sun a proprietary edge and hopefully, some control.
Do people remember the "Open SPARC" fiasco. SPARC was going to be open. Anyone could build systems that were compatible and run Sun's OS. Well, such systems got built. Resellers started carrying the systems because they were eqyual to SUn's and cheaper. McNealy closed done the initiative.
Remember how Sun fought against Motif? It did everything it could to kill it (except share its technology) and then "discoverd" and adopted Motif when more than 50% of its customers had switched to Motif, rejected Sun's solution and were demanding Sun provide support.
Remember how Sun's attemp to control UNIX, with its AT&T deal forced its competitors to form the Open Software Foundation and actually cooperate (for a while).
Remember that Sun built an x86 verison of its OS and was selling it. As the Intel platform became a serious server challenge to Sun's proprietary hardware, Sun dropped the product.
Get the idea? Expect no cooperation from McNealy. And, if he ever seecooperating, be VERY, VERY, VERY suspicious.
This whole thing is so over blown. For once I agree with McNealy. If there were anything MS could do to kill JAVA they would do it. Why the rest of the open source software community doesn't recognize what is going on is beyond me.
Forking JAVA would spell death to the portability. MS would have their fork the first day, don't you think?
IMHO the OSS companies ought to embrace JAVA. It is the best defense preventing against Visual Basic, or visual anything, from taking over the world. It is also portable.
But if VB wins, what will Linux do then? Ask MS to port VB to Linux? That ought to be interesting.
tb
Sun, learn from your mistakes. There was a time when Java's license prevented abuse by Microsoft, but that time has passed. C# is Microsoft's new approach to "embrace and extend" Java, and the only effective way to counter it is to make Java fully open-source now, before C# inexorably crushes Java. The writing is on the wall yet again -- don't let Java die the same lingering death that NeWS suffered!
.Net:
Sorry to be blunt here but I really get annoyed at people who just don't look at the market and think their little part of the world is right.
Currently the Enterprise Software space lines up as follows
Java:
SAP, Oracle, IBM, Peoplesoft, WebMethods, TIBCO, SeeBeyond, BEA, Sun and LOADS of ISVs
Microsoft
And in the Mobile space
Java:
Nokia, Ericsson, Sony, SAP, Oracle, IBM, Motorola, Symbian and LOADS of ISVs and handset people.
So with Java not being open-sourced, but running the Java Community Process... by which ANYONE can get involved in the future direction of the standard, propose modifications and have them incorporated.... err and how is this worse than Linux ? Java has managed to get 95%+ of the enterprise space, and last year 50% of phones sold ran Java, that is 1/4 billion devices. 98% of smartcards run Java.
For you to say that MS and C# will have to win if Java isn't OSSed then I'm sorry but its this sort of small minded view on the market that helps MS get to the position it is in.
The JCP is IMO the strongest OSS tool on the market, the standard is open, implementations can be open and there is a validation mechanism to make sure everything fits.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Java currently has several core implementations
Sun, Blackdown (OSS), IBM
J2EE has several implementations
SAP, Oracle, IBM, Sun, JBoss(OSS), BEA etc
J2ME has several implementations
Sun, SavaJE etc etc
How come there is only one Linux Kernel that is recognised ? Is it because the JCP with its reference implementations and verification kits creates a more open environment than Linux can hope to.
Lets put it this way... why is 802.11b/g etc successful ? Because its open source, or because there is an OPEN STANDARD with defined compliance kits ?
Java is like 802.11 & Ethernet... a success by being an Open Standard. Its only the implementations that should be OSS, like Blackdown and JBoss already are.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Well, let me put it this way:
Yes, there are existing efforts at making a Free Software JVM/Java implementation - notably GCJ and Kaffe - and it is perfectly legal to do so. However, the big problem is reimplementing the whole Java API. Java has probably one of the biggest unified API's ever. Creating a compatible and stable implementation is not only a massive job, but also such an effort will be forever playing catch up! GNU Classpath is an admirable effort, relied upon by pretty much every GPL Java implementation, but just look at all the core stuff missing from the API!
If Sun GPL'd all its API, we could have a functional 100% free Java implementation right now, and they could still keep their own JVM tech proprietary, maybe sell it as a high performance option or something. Also, think of the improvements and bugfixes you'd get with thousands of people hacking on the class libraries?
As for forking the language, I think Sun could use its existing Community infrastructure to help tie development together and prevent this. Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, etc are all open languages, yet forking is not a problem with them! As for Microsoft somehow doing evil stuff with Java - they have C# doing a good enough job at eroding Java already!
Another advantage to opening Java would be that distributions could include it in the base install. As it stands, if you want to run Sun's JVM, you have to go to their website seperately and download it. Even their download procedure itself can be a pain (especially on a server)!
Other people have blamed distros themselves for "religious" attitudes, but the fact is they simply aren't allowed to distribute JVMs, without at least adding all kinds of EULAs etc to the installer.
In my opinion Sun should:
If Sun opened it up, Java could become the base language of GNOME as detailed here. Think of how cool it would be to use a well established, modern language to write GNOME apps? And Sun would get even more of a foothold with their language.
The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.