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.
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.
Why would you need an open source Java?
Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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.
Because many distros will not ship non-free software by default. This greatly limits the usefulness of Java as a general development language for Linux applications.
Doesn't that say more about Linux than it does about Sun?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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.
1) You can make your own java compiler.
2) You can make your own JVM.
3) You can make your own libraries.
4) Your java code can be open source.
What does making java "open source" mean? It means making the standard open. Why does the core java standard need to be open when you can write your own open source libraries? Sun already has a community process for adding features.
I know some distros and die hard GNU people dont like it just because its license but most people dont care about that and dont even ave a problem buying software when its warranted.
some amazing solutions would show up for Java that will probably never appear with it being closed source.
like what?
so is Java
You could buy a program and run it on OS X, Linux, Windows, or whatever.
you can do just that with any Java app today
I code in Java for a living. I don't think open-sourcing it or not has anything to do with Java's current problems in the marketplace. Just my 2 cents.
there's no place like ~
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
Is that Sun's problem or the Distro's problem?
Someone who doesn't know enough to install the JDK on their computer on their own from a package that is already included in their distro (just not in the 'free' section) probably wouldn't be able to develop in it. If you like java, you can install it, you can use it.
Maybe the linux distributors should be a little more open regarding what programs they would like to include.
Look at sourceforge. The number of open source projects written with java is huge.
It's not sun that's going to lose out by not open sourcing java. I'm not trying to sound negative. People are deploying java apps on linux all the time. Especially web applications.
It seems like the OS community wants sun to do it out of principle. None of the arguments made really hold up in my opinion.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Actually this would not be a problem only with Linux, but even across other operating systems.
Like I indicated in another post, there is nothing to stop Microsoft from having their own "windows-only" forked version of Java. And nothing to stop from the GNU/Debian crowd to have their own "puritanical" version. And nothing to stop from IBM to have their own "enterprise-ready" version of Java.
If you notice, even in case of Linux, Linus and a handful of others actually maintain the core kernel code. In case of language, it would be difficult to have this kind of a central point of control - the forking would be really hard to control, and would only lead to more confusion and more complexity, not to mention serious incompatibility issues - all of which flies against the very principles that Java has been built on.
People are naturally asking "What does open sourcing Java get us?"
My answer is "Java on the desktop", where it has been an abysmal failure. Yep, there's three or four applications you can point at that are the exception... now show me 20 or 30 common Java desktop applications.
Imagine Java + QT or Java + GTK. I'm a Python partisan and frankly pretty much hate Java, but you know, stick a decent, time-test GUI toolkit on it and I might consider developing with it in the future, especially in light of the other improvements being made to it.
(Being able to program in Java without making me gag would probably improve my employability long term, though I'm still running successfully with "if I never learn Java I'll never have to program in it" without limiting myself as much as you might think...)
I code in Java for a living. I don't think open-sourcing it or not has anything to do with Java's current problems in the marketplace.
In fact, it would only make it worse - Opensource it and you will have serious issues with version control and compatibility.
As it is, getting enterprise level applications running together in Java is not an easy task - bring in more forks and incompatibility and you will kill the language.
Sometimes, standardisation through a central point of control can be a good thing.
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.
You've never had to write code that compiles under multiple compilers for multiple platforms, have you?
One of the driving forces behind Java's evolution was the fragmentation of the C++ camp.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
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";
Care to explain how Java's license that forbids distribution the fault of the distributor?
Open sourcing Java is not a panacea.
/.)...
I agree that ultimately it'll probably make it a better language, but it will take plenty of time for the benefits to realize themselves, and in the mean time, as the language get stagnant, it'll probably be eclipsed by C#. Look at Netscape/Mozilla for example. Open sourcing Navigator ultimately led to a better browser, but how long did it take before a version 1.0 of Mozilla was finally released? During that time, while Navigator was stuck in 4.x limbo, IE overtook it easily. Furthermore, despite Mozilla being open sourced, its evolution is guided closely by Mozilla.org. Java have a similar guiding entity, it's called JCP (Java Community Process). A board anyone can join and contribute to. Besides, Java's API's are clearly documented, and other companies can make a compatible JVM (IBM, Apple, and BEA all did). And the sources for the classes included with the JDK's are freely available.
Look at perl for example... 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
This logic doesn't explain the tremendous growth Java has enjoyed on the server side. J2EE technologies are implemented widely on the Internet, and there are plenty of web applications (and tools) build using Java (Tomcat, Ant, etc.).
-B
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
The license does not prohibit redistribution. Debian has just decided the license doesn't suit them is all. That's Debian's issue not Sun's.
For the record here are the re-distribution clauses from the 1.4.2_04JDK:
Linux VPS hosting *with* Sun JVMs
(vi) you agree to 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.
That, for instance, does not sound like a term that any distro would be particularily happy with (or, in the case of a community effort like Debian, even possible).
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
"they" are almost every distro out there. And "they" do not include Java for pretty good, license-related reasons.
And no, this is Sun:s problem, not the distributions. A good deal of people that would have been using Java for their applications are instead happily using Python, Perl, C/C++ or, rarely but increasingly often,even Mono/C# for their development. Those people were Sun's to loose, and they did.
Right now we have the situation that even Sun is doing all their GNOME contributions in C/C++, as Java is not acceptable as part of the core desktop at this time (neither is Mono/C#, of course - no need to start a flamewar here). In fact, we will likely see Python (and maybe Perl) accepted as core technologies for the desktop (for both GNOME and KDE) long before we see Java - and by then, it may be too late for Java no matter what happens. Of course, that is a problem for Sun (and for dedicated Java developers), not for the distros or for the general user/developer population.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I also question the benefit to open source java. Microsoft Java? Maybe, but they built C# because Sun took them to task for violating their license, and creating a "write once, run on Microsoft" version. I don't really see any compelling arguments for making it open source. IBM, BlackBerry, and other java SDKs without an open source license, and there is a community process for submitting changes to the specs.
It's not just about specs. Implementations matter. If Sun's reference implementation isn't open source, the language isn't really free.
I can understand Sun's initial reluctance to open-source Java years ago -- Microsoft would have (probably successfully) embraced and extended Java, as they indeed tried to do. At the time, the closed license was beneficial.
Here's the compelling reason for Sun to open-source Java now -- Microsoft no longer has an incentive to embrace and extend Java. They've done an end-run around the Java license by reimplementing a virtually identical language and calling it C# instead of Java. Microsoft will keep pushing C# over Java, and they're already successfully stealing away significant mindshare from Java. Microsoft has proven their ability to (illegally) leverage their monopoly position to acquire new markets. I hate to say it, but in the battle of C# vs. Java, the smart money is probably on C# unless something changes.
Making the Sun reference implementation completely open-source would change the rules of the game. Microsoft might try to subvert it again, but there really wouldn't be any point; C# does the job equally well. More importantly, the rest of the industry would embrace Java even more than it already has, and it could serve to steal mindshare back from C# despite Microsoft's monopoly advantage. This is a compelling reason to do it.
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.
I have no doubt this remark was sarcastic on McNealy's part, but suppose IBM takes it seriously? If IBM wants Java open-sourced badly enough, would they consider making DB2 open-source as a sort of trade? If IBM responded with an offer to enter into a contract at Sun for both Java and DB2 to be open-sourced together (and conditionally on each other), would McNealy take IBM up on the offer? Or would he just find a new excuse to refuse to relinquish control over the code?
It seems that Sun still hasn't learned their lesson from the NeWS debacle of the late 80s. While NeWS was clearly superior technology at the time, X11 was free in every sense. And it mattered. NeWS fans (including me) could see the writing on the wall, and complained that Sun should make NeWS as free as X11. ("Open Source" wasn't a term coined yet, of course.) Of course, Sun refused, and NeWS died a slow and terrible death at the hands of an inferior (but free) competitor. Even now, Sun shows little interest in making NeWS free, when its value as an "asset" is zero. Will Sun maintain a similar deathgrip on Java until it too lands in the dustbins of history, while the world settles on C# instead of Java, as with X11 and NeWS?
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!
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
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