Slashdot Mirror
James Gosling On The Sun/Microsoft Settlement
greg_barton writes "James Gosling has responded to the two previous commentaries cited on Slashdot about the Java Dilemma. Some interesting excerpts: "In Rick Ross's 'Where Is Java In This Settlement?' he worries that Sun may have sold out the Java community. We didn't. We have not sold our soul to the Dark Side." and "There's a long thread of discussion on Slashdot 'Two Takes on the Java Dilemma' that is pretty entertaining, from a wow, what are they smoking! point of view. There are voices of reason, and conspiracy nuts.""
Personally I'm surprised nobody is lobbing Big Blue's name around in all these discussions, because I think the Sun/Microsoft deal has a lot more to do with IBM than it does with Sun.
IBM is the only company in the world that could realistically engage in a multi-front competitive battle with Microsoft. And if they were capable of gaining more control of Java (perhaps by a cash investment in Sun, or perhaps even buying them) they would pose a far greater threat to Microsoft than Netscape ever did. IBM's e-business strategy coupled with Java control would be an unstoppable force.
People talk about Microsoft competitors yet they raise company names like Sun, Real, or Netscape. The threat they pose to Microsoft is a drop in the bucket compared to IBM and their e-business strategy. A strategy that is incredibly reliant on Java.
Taking it a logical step further lets assume Microsoft made this settlement not to take *Sun* out of the game, but rather to take *IBM* out of the game. Perhaps the silence on the Java front is because $2 billion is the price to get Sun to walk away from Java. Silently. Could this cause Rich Green to leave in disgust?
Personally I suspect this deal was all about dealing a terrible blow to IBM. I think the one thing Sun and Microsoft aren't talking about is the one thing they ever really cared about in this deal -- Java. I hope not, but the more I read the more sure I become that Sun has done a deal with the devil and Java was the bargaining chip.
" There are voices of reason, and conspiracy nuts."
And you expected anything else?
Slashdot sucks
Funny to see this comment from slashdot, since the rest of the world often things the same thing of the fanatic and horridly biased opensource slashdot topics and commentators.
tora
Scott McNealy used to always say gravity was on his side. I used to wonder how he figured that since you had IBM, and all the other big iron makers dropping in from above and back then it was microsoft and intel setting up a rockhard floor for him to be squished on.
Sun is now in quite the pickle. Sparcstations arent a contender for the desktop. Their server sales are being trashed by Linux on Intel, and Linux on mainframe.
Their latest play MadHatter looks nice but so does lindows,suse, and redhat. The latter 3 have one great thing going for them, they are one time licenses not perpetual service contracts like mad hatter.
Its no wonder that they paid SCO a licenses fee and are now dissing Linux. Its also no wonder that Bill Joy left the company.
Not that there is anything particularly wrong with having a viewpoint that perhaps GPL-like freedom is not the most important thing to preserve in computing, but Gosling's personal attacks on RMS are a little over the top. He starts off by accusing RMS of redefining "Free" and then proceeds to deconstruct the entire concept of Software Freedom based on the hinge that RMS is essentially a kook.
I respect Gosling as a very intelligent programmer and language designer, but his willingness to engage in personal attacks against others in the Software Community makes me question his personal judgement.
Java does not need to be Free to be useful, but such can be said without resorting to deriding the entire Software Freedom movement, IMO.
I have been pwned because my
Why should they contribute, if the side they speak up for isn't interested?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
since he's apparently overlooked the halloween memos from Microsoft stating that they would be causing as much disruption in the open source community as possible.
Wether the speculation is true or not, it's certainly not unfounded.
I think that there will be little meaningful technological change in either Microsoft's or Sun's products as a result of the settlement. Microsoft did not want to be barred from distributing the JVM while Sun did not want Microsoft to fork Java (like J++ originally tried to). The settlement ensures that both concerns are met. The major surprise to me was the magnitude and nature of the license payments to Sun. I would have thought Microsoft could structure the payments as an equity investment similar to their $100million investment in Apple so as to at least they receive something of more tangible value in return.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Offtopic perhaps...but how often does M$ actually see a lawsuit through it's course in the legal system? It seems that they can buy anything through settlements.
But there really is a conspiracy!
Seriously though, if there was a conspiracy, would not the voices of reason then become the trolls, and the conspiracy nuts become the voices of reason?
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
There are Free open source implementations of Java already. Not quite up to the same level as the Sun's offerings yet, but it is difficult to hit a moving target...
while true; do eject; eject -t; done
i'm going to 'have a little faith' and trust gosling and mcnealy. we haven't even seen what Sun's next move is yet hoards of /.'ers are freaking out. lets give these guys a chance before we dismiss them.
smd4985
Because the ventriloquist's dummy can't speak with the ventriloquist.
You might want ot view my weblog post titled Gosling smoking weed..
Gosling makes several errors both on the economic trends of SUN in the server hardware sector the difference between a state machine and a desktop manager and etc..
Also remember that the linux standard survives and thrives under GPL stewardship..a charge Gosling never has completely refuted other to resort to name calling..
You will probalby see more name callign from several sectors at Sun.. sad really.. so much could be solved by stopping the name callign and deal with the real issues such as devleopers worried that because the settlement seem to take aawy 50% fo all java marketing in one fell swoop that java may be waning and etc..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
~*~ ~*~ ~*~
yes, girls read /. too...
"So I can answer the questions"
Nukyular!
Do we hate Sun this week? Or was that next week?
Maybe they are afraid that James is going to dramaticically increase the amount he is charging them for radiant energy. Personally I think we should all boycott James Gosling as I don't believe he as actually laid claim to the sun by actually going there.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Unlike GPLd software, the Java sources don't come with a viral infection clause that requires you to apply the GPL to your own code
Didn't sell your soul, huh?
Since Gosling is an employee of Sun, not Microsoft, and is trying to defend the actions of Sun, not Microsoft, how is your comment relevant?
"Unlike GPLd software, the Java sources don't come with a viral infection clause that requires you to apply the GPL to your own code." Sheesh! I didn't know that GPL code had a virus! Call USAMRIID! I feel so dirty now...covered with...microscopic...germs. Seriously, though...I think that $2 billion has bought Microsoft a friend for life. Who says money can't buy love?
Nice troll. Too bad you got it off antislash. Go away.
Is that a "Wow! What are they smoking? Since when were drugs for nerds?" point of view he's talking about or perhaps a "Wow! What are they smoking? Why is their English still mostly intact?" or (most probably) "Wow! What are they smoking? Can I get that here in the States?"
These Java supporters are really shady characters. Corrupting our youth's minds...
True story.
Art doesn't obey the first law of thermodynamics either. Some people put their whole life, unrecognized, into creating art, and when they are long gone, their work is still with us. COMPENSATION and BUSINESS obey the 1st law of thermodynamics, but that is by no means the only driving force behind people.
When .NET is.
So Java seems to be less encumbered than .Net at this point.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
From here
'As for Richard Stallman's "Free but shackled: The Java trap," it's hard to know where to begin. He has his own rather peculiar definition of "free" that I think violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy is conserved)' As for Richard Stallman's references to "non-free" they may "seem" to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, but non the less he brings up a good point. With all the trouble and mysteries behind Java at this point, it's not a bad idea to Develop the GNU Classpath. Right now Sun seems to have a hidden agenda which we can't decifer at this point...no one knows if, when the time comes, java will remain "non-free" and move on to "pay-me-now".
(1) Slashdot is, itself, a commentary site. It's generally probably not the most polite thing to say "I've got commentary on this, but you have to go elsewhere to see it."
(2) If you are going to do this, you ought to at least make a compelling case to the reader that your external commentary is worth reading.
(3) Mispelling so many words I can barely even figure out what you're trying to say is not a good way of fulfilling (2).
(4) "Also remember that the linux standard survives and thrives under GPL stewardship..a charge Gosling never has completely refuted other to resort to name calling.."; in what context is this quote relevant? What are you referring to? The "linux steward" refers to.. what? Who? Linus? Essentially, I have not seen Gosling taking enough of a stand on any GPL issue to be quite certain what you are trying to argue against here, and am unclear on why you think it is Mr. Gosling's job to "refute" the "linux steward", whatever that means. Please clarify.
We have not sold our soul to the Dark Side. certainly not. oh by the way do you know any good ways to get the windows logos off of our foreheads?
The debate between the GPL folks and Java folks will go on for quite awhile, the big point here is that IBM has more people working on Java and Java based solutions that Sun. Sun has lost the momentum in the Java arena in some areas. Yes the JSR process does produce standards, but IMO If I look at technologies like J2ME, the industry is still fragmented. You may be able to build J2SE applications and run them on Windows, Linux, Solaris or what have you and have a reasonable expectation of WORA however J2ME isn't there, after 3 years. So, putting WORA aside the fragmentation in J2ME even with Palm demonstrates that Java becomes a utilitarian application delivery infrastructure that may or may not be ubiquitious.
Palm and Sun had differences of J2ME, Palm works with IBM and viola, J2ME for Palm the way palm wanted it, not Sun.
So, from a technology High Ground, Sun doesn't control Java explicitly, and that's a good thing. Sun's controls on Java do make sense as Gosling pointed out however let's not forget the J2EE 1.2 specification that was held up by a voting member because of EJB 2.0 compliance issues. In this case the JSR voting member had a conflict with voting on the spec while their product didn't adhere to it. So, EJB 2.0 gets held up, which holds up J2EE 1.2. That happened and the company's initials have a B in them, but it's not IBM.
So, while the JSR process isn't perfect, the thought that vendors are most of the JSR participants isn't all bad, unless a log jam occurs. Maybe someday J2ME will be as ubiquitious as J2SE, J2EE isn't quite there yet, but getting there. Let's also not forget the whole JBoss issue, but that's another thread.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
About a third to half of the article you're supposedly responding to consists of Mr. Gosling claiming the exact set of baseless allegations your post brings up to be false. In fact, attempting to refute such allegations appears to have been one of his primary reasons for writing said article.
Did you just not notice this? Or did you not read the article? I'm leaning toward the second, since first off it references nothing in this article whatsoever, and second that's an awful long and carefully-formed post to have gotten FP on. Either you read and type reeeal fast, or you wrote this beforehand and waited for another Sun story so you could grab an early post number and get up to Score:5.
So, at any rate, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read the article. So is what you are implying by your post that you believe Mr. Gosling to be lying when he explicitly brings up the things you allege and says they are entirely untrue and without basis? Why?
Has Sun ever figured out a way to monetize Java? Perhaps the Java language and related technologies are lost leaders in order to sell hardware?
Does Sun make any direct income from Java?
Gosling really has his head in the sand in regard to the future of Sun by claiming that Sun is platform neutral and has nothing to fear from x86. Sun makes its money by selling Sparc workstations. Simply claiming that Sun isn't tied to a hardware architecture is just silly. Yes, it has made software for the x86, but like Apple, Sun is a hardware company -- all the software (including Java) exists simply to sell hardware. What happens when people realize that Sparcs no longer have the price/performance ratio?
Show me a "voice of reason" regarding business deals with MacroShaft, and I'll show you someone who's been in a cave since the mid-80's. Some of us are "conspiracy nuts" only because we've seen too many kicked there so often by The Monopoly.
= 9J =
The money is in software, licensing agreements, user base, support, etc. I don't know about using free software for this. When time comes to upgrade, linux will run on whatever hardware is cheapest at the moment. No need to retrain your users/admins.
Companies are the wrong place to put trust. They are a nessisary evil that is to be watched carefully to ensure that they do not abuse their power. They are not God, their whitepapers are not to be followed religeously. As always do whats in the best interest of your particular company. Never fall in love with a company or technology, or you will be burned.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I'm sure James Gosling only wants Java to flourish. But the big catch about the JDK's licence (SCSL) is that it gives Sun a Nuclear Button. Sun has the power to force the Java platform's development to go only in directions they approve. And however pure their intentions are, as a public company they have a legal duty to use that power in a way that makes the most money for their shareholders. If it is ever more profitable to kill Java, for Microsoft cash, say, then Sun will be legally obliged to do it.
Compare this to Perl or Python, where there is no Nuclear Button. No-one has the power to prohibit derivatives. And so Perl and Python developers have a much more concrete guarantee that those languages will still be living languages in 20 years' time. Meanwhile there's no sign of the "fragmentation problem" which James Gosling argues they ought to suffer from being truly Open-Source.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Sun's signing into Microsoft's Communications Protocol Program locks Sun and Sun customers into interoperating with any Microsoft system on Microsoft's strict terms, conditions and royalty rates. It also denies the possibility that the code using those Microsoft protocols will ever be open sourced.
This raises serous questions. For example, how much longer will Sun be free to distribute and integrate SAMBA with the Java Desktop? Will Sun's signing of the MCPP have a network affect on vendors who have access to Sun's source code -- will they also be forced to sign up to the MCPP?
I understand Sun's attempt to spin "Peace in our time" into "This Was Their Finest Hour"however, if you look where the quote originated from...
We can be truly thankful that Churchill's next action was not to sign a treaty with Hitler, accepting gold looted from occupied states as payment for damages done.This reminds me of the many times ESR defended VA Linux, on his way to becoming rich and then normal again.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Any Doctor who applies the laws of thermodynamics as in the context of the article clearly has their doctorate in something other than physics. The analogy is more hyperbolic than amusing. I guess this is a hallmark of influence and seniority: concepts such as "energy" and "virus" are used in a cavalier fashion instead of with accuracy.
From:
What is Science?
Richard P. Feynman
the Physics Teacher, September, 1969, pp. 313-320
There is a first-grade science book which, in the first lesson of the first grade, begins in an unfortunate. manner to teach science, because it starts off on the wrong idea of what science is. There is a picture of a dog, a windable toy dog, and a hand comes to the winder, and then the dog is able to move. Under the last picture, it says "What makes it move?" Later on, there is a picture of a real dog and the question "What makes it move?" Then there is a picture of a motor bike and the question "What makes it move?" and so on.
I thought at first they were getting ready to tell what science was going to be about: physics, biology, chemistry. But that wasn't it. The answer was in the teachers edition of the book; the answer I was trying, to learn is that "energy makes it move." Now energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get right. What I mean by that it is not easy to understand energy well enough to use it right, so that you can deduce something correctly, using the energy idea. It is beyond the first grade. It would be equally well to say that "God makes it move," or "spirit makes it move," or "movability makes it move." (In fact one could equally well say "energy makes it stop.")
Look at it this way: That's only the definition of energy. It should be reversed. We might say when something can move that it has energy in it, but not "what makes it move is energy." This is a very subtle difference. It's the same with this inertia proposition. Perhaps I can make the difference a little clearer this way: if you ask a child what makes the toy dog move, you should think about what an ordinary human being would answer. The answer is that you wound up the spring; it tries to unwind and pushes the gear around. What a good way to begin a science course. Take apart the toy; see how it works. See the cleverness of the gears; see the ratchets. Learn something about the toy the way the toy is put together, the ingenuity of people devising the ratchets and other things. That's good. The question is fine. The answer is a little unfortunate, because what they were trying to do is teach a definition of what is energy. But nothing whatever is learned.
Suppose a student would say, 'I don't think energy makes it move." Where does the discussion go from there?
I finally figured out a way to test whether you have taught an idea or you have only taught a definition. Test it this way: You say, "Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language." Without using the word "energy," tell me what you know now about the dog's motion." You cannot. So you learned nothing except the definition. You learned nothing about science. That may be all right. You may not want to learn something about science right away. You have to learn definitions. But for the very first lesson is that not possibly destructive?
I think, for lesson number one, to learn a mystic formula for answering questions is very bad. The book has some others-"gravity makes it fall;" "the soles of your shoes wear out because of friction." Shoe leather wears out because it rubs against the sidewalk and the little notches and bumps on the sidewalk grab pieces and pull them off. To simply say it is because of friction, is sad, because it's not science.
shifts direction almost as often as a political candidate
In exactly what way does Sun "shift direction almost as often as a political candidate"?
But you can't even redistribute unmodified copies of it, which is why no linux distro includes a JVM. To use Java under Linux requires a user to go search it out, download a non-trivial package and install it.
Whaa? I am typing these words into Epiphany on a Gentoo Linux machine. This machine has a fully functional JVM on it. I didn't install this JVM or do any other consious action to put it here. Would you care to explain to me how it got there?
#ego20829391483
From the article:
Dr. James Gosling is a Sun Microsystems fellow who managed the group that created Java in the early 1990s.
Who is the creator of Java?
Everyone knows it is Gosling, but for some reason Sun would have you believe Bill Joy did it. Why? Sun only acknowledges that Gosling managed those who created Java. So did Gosling manage Bill Joy as well? This makes no sense. If a wookie lives on Endor you must acquit.
Java is useful mainly for middleware.
It's only in the public eye because at this moment in time, middleware is where corporate money is. This will change and the developers will be free to choose the right tool for the right job again. Java will assume it's rightful place as just another tool in the drawer, perhaps somewhere between bash and C++.
Sentience and its products are manifestly quantum phenomena...
Interesting claim, but...how do you know? Are you claiming sentience requires quantum phenomena to occur (a very bold and unsubstantiated claim), or are you simply stating that since our universe is quantum mechanical, anything that arises within it (including sentience) is of course a quantum phenomena?
Remember Gosling's emacs for VMS?
Gosling has always been an RMS wannabe.
I don't think Gosling understands Free Software at all.
He responds to Stallman by saying:
a) The GPL is not free, it has a strong political agenda.
b) Java is free in many respects (you don't pay to use the JVM, you can see the source). Java sources don't have a viral licence like the GPL.
c) Giving freedom to JVM 'implementors' would be damaging to JVM 'users' (Java developers).
I will tackle these in turn:
a) Gosling implies the FSF has a 'hidden' political agenda. Their agenda is about as far from hidden as I can imagine - I don't think he has read any of the documents on the FSF web site. If you don't think the GPL promotes more freedom than, say, the Java licence, you have an extremely simplistic view of freedom. The political agenda is that the GPL strongly tries to promote a whole world of free software - and if you don't necessarily always agree with that part of the agenda, you can do as I do and use the LGPL or BSD licences. The main point is, if you currently want to ship a product based on Sun's JVM code, you need to licence the code from them to do that. If that code were GPL, it would give all of us freedom to work with the code, but possibly mean many users would no longer need to pay to licence the code from Sun (their fear) - unless of course they didn't want to give away their modifications, in which case they would be in *exactly the same* position they are in now, and could continue to pay Sun for a licence with different terms.
b) Gosling switches from Free(dom) Software to free(beer) (Open Source) software. I can use Internet Explorer for free too, but it certainly isn't Free Software. Stallman is most definitely talking about Freedom. I don't care if I can *see* the source code, the issue is, what can I *do* with that code. The Java licence gives me a *lot* less Freedom than the GPL in that regard. Goslings response has no value for the many of us who don't care too much for the Open Source movement.
c) You already have a licensing program for the term "Java" and associated logos and trademarks - we aren't asking you to give those away. As a Java developer, I would still like to see the guarantees of a licensing program - do like every other industry does and say "if you don't see logo X, you aren't getting 'Java'". If you make the JVM implementation Free Software, it doesn't mean you have to let everyone label their products built on that code as 'Java'. And as for any protections for users/developers, this is a myth anyhow. Look at the SWT toolkit (used to build Eclipse) for an example - what happens if it takes off in popularity (it's going that way), what protections do you have then? None.
And although not mentioned, most developers from the Free Sofware world will also view Java Community Process as a farce as well. Look at the lobbying Apache had to do recently to be allowed to implement JCP specs for one example of how this process does nothing to guarantee our Freedom. (I also fail to understand the communities abhorrent reaction to the W3C patent policy discussions, yet the seeming acceptance of many for the JCP.)
Moving into the information age, it is my view that the foundation technology we build our word around should not ultimately be under the control of any single group or corporation. Using Free Software provides me with a number of guarantees that the programs/code I use will always be there for me, and that I will always have the freedom to use, modify, and rely on those for myself or my business. Java, as provided by Sun, does not have those guarantees.
Sun's JVM is the only software on my system which has a click-through license. It's the only software that isn't handled through the standard package manager for my platform.
Can someone explain to me why this PITA license is necessary to ensure compatibility?
Mr. Gosling states that compatibility is the purpose behind the Java license. I can't connect the click-through license to compatibility. It seems to me that standard trademark and copyright terms suffice for that. The GNU GPL uses plain copyright to achieve its purpose. A click-through license is only needed when license holder wants to create a contract (usually restricting the user's right to less than standard copyright terms), instead granting a license to distribute copyrighted material.
If I must sign a contract to use Java, that's a strong incentive for me to avoid Java. I don't need binary portability, I've got source portability for what I run. As far as I can see, Java provides features that I don't need in return for a license that I don't want. What am I missing?
Here's the whuffie link
--
Power to the Peaceful
I will stick with my Python as it is really free, yes I can even pack it in with my project and give it to anyone I want. Coding in java is like writing a macro in MS word and saving the document. I refuse to had the key to my code over to someone else.
Got Code?
First off, GCJ and GNU Classpath are in the process of being merged.
Second, you missed an important alternative JVM: Kaffe!
Kaffe is a GPL'd clean room implementation of Sun's java spec.
"We have not sold our soul to the Dark Side."
A tad bit childish. Sun are not the angelic good guys. Microsoft are not the bad guys. Leave the Dungeons and Dragon or Starwars attitude at home.
Nota Bene : I'm a fan of both really, be gentle. I just hate bias.
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
With the announcement of this settlement and the death of its processor development Sun enters the DEC glidepath to oblivion.
If you stick a fork in it - today it will still scream but give it a year or so and its all over.
Linux and the AMD Opteron make them irrelevant.
"He doesn't have time for this liberal pantywaist dog-and-pony show."
Slashdot is NOT a dog-and-pony show!
Moderators, I do appear to have had a maliciously misleading troll repond to me, but please explain to me in what fashion the parent post is a troll?
as a professional Java developer that I understand where he's coming from, but I don't agree with him. It's really a question as to whether a "heavy hand" is a better creator of standards vs. natural selection of thousands of people free to make an informed decision as to the right direction to take. If Sun claims that their leadership is the best for Java, why hide behind the CONTROL that they have of it. How do they honestly know that they are the best stewards if people are not free to pursue a different direction. I can see how they want to lead people into their vision of cross platform, which I truly believe in and think will happen, but you can't force it. It will happen when it happens, and I personally believe it will. If "we" need some more time to suffer the shackles of the hardware OS, there is no amount of screaming that Sun can do to bring about this change other than convincing more people of the need for it to happen so that more people bring it about. There are other more subtle ways to draw poeple into their vision while practicing "servant leadership" and actually discovering how and where people want to go before deciding it for them. Microsoft used to empower people with the openness of their architecture compared to Apple or even IBM, but now Linux has taken over that role as MS has started following their own shadow around trying to figure out where they want to go.
Here is the best articulation of leadership I have ever personally seen: Dee Hock on Leadership
Dee Hock has written extensively about the concept of emergent systems and the coming "chaordic" age where we will design systems that incorporate the best traits of chaos and order, essentially order surfing at the edge of chaos. I would say that the GPL better embodies these traits, although Java and it's licensing also exhibits some of these behaviors. Longer term, however, I think the GPL allows for this process much better, regardless of any symantic battles over the word "FREE".
The thing that continually intrigues me about the GPL is how people seem to reject it rather than embracing all the benefits that it provides while also addressing its drawbacks. I think it does have drawbacks (RMS' occasionally overblown ego certainly doesn't help the cause, kind of like Steven Wolfram...great work...horrible attitude). Still, to beat the GPL you have to keep all the good before you claim to throw away the bad.
"The way they should do it, in my opinion, is by ensuring that a significant portion of the settlement proceeds will be used to benefit Java developers and strengthen independent, standards-based efforts to advance Java."
This is exactly what's being done. Our investment in and commitment to Java is very strong.
In other words, "Developers, developers, developers, developers...". Talk about dark side, huh?...
--JC
Redundant, I know...
--JC
Please clarify. What is this "MCPP", from what primary source can we see that Sun has signed on to it as part of the settlement and to what extent have they done so, and where can more information about it be found?
James Gosling "On The Sun"...Cool, first man on the moon...then robots on Mars...Now we got a guy named James on The Sun....Amazing.
Wow, thanks for that contentless stream of buzzwords.
Some of you may know this already, but for those who don't, RMS and James Gosling had a feud in the 80s over Gosling's Emacs (which was a TECO Emacs workalike). Apparently, there were agreements between Gosling and several other developers to the effect that they could modify and redistribute the source to Gosling's Emacs. RMS decided to base the original GNU Emacs on Gosling's code. Apparently, this happened after Gosling decided to sell the rights to his Emacs clone to Unipress, and bitter legal threats ensued. This seems to have been one of the primary motivations for the GPL. I've never seen Gosling speak or write about the incident since. RMS gave a speech in 1986 where he recounted the incident, and he didn't have a lot of good things to say about Gosling:
That speech also has a few memorable quotes, and I highly recommend you read it. I haven't heard or read RMS referring to Gosling personally since, but I believe that the incident itself has been recalled by him a few times since.
Now for my part of the disclosure: I currently attend the University of Calgary, where James Gosling is the only persona anywhere near to fame that the Computer Science department has ever produced (Theo de Raadt doesn't count, unless your definition of "produce" involves scandal and legal threats).
The above is mostly just hearsay and speculation, and should not be taken as authoritative, except the excerpt from RMS's speech.
In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.
I used to have high respect for Gosling until I attended one of his talk in UCLA in 97 or 98, right around the time Java 1.2 was about to be released with much hyped Hotspot at that time. During the Q&A session, someone asking about Hotspot and its speed boost. Gosling started by saying "the speed boost could potentially be hundreds of times and Sun acquired the technology from a research group in Stanford." The followed up question raised by another person asking him if the research group was SELF, a language research group in Stanford. Gosling stalled a while, and said basically yes, and the speed boost was 2 to 3 times at best.
I checked out the SELF group in Stanford and the hundreds times speed up is a on special case which should never occured in real program. Basically, SELF reorganized the codes in branching and eliminated unnecessary condition. The test program has hundreds of if statement which would either always be true or false. SELF optimization applied to this particular case would gives hundreds fold speed up but it's meaningless.
Ever since then, I take whatever Gosling has to say with a ton of salt. He's pretty a marketing guy in techie mask.
Remember Java is a library. They'd have to go with the LGPL.
Personally, I am a big fun of java and have been for years. I am a big fan of Open source, and have been for even longer. But I can not understand why people see the need for merging the two.
I have serious doubts that Java would continue at its current development schedule if open sourced. Nothing is stopping open source groups from working on a free Java right now. In fact GCJ and Kaffe people have been working on it for years.
Are they anyway close??
How can we tell Sun what to do with their developer time? Why not go donate some time/money/resources to an effort like kaffe.org instead?
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
"Classpath is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License with the following clarification and special exception. Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.
As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
As such, it can be used to run, create and distribute a large class of applications and applets. When GNU Classpath is used unmodified as the core class library for a virtual machine, compiler for the java languge, or for a program written in the java programming language it does not affect the licensing for distributing those programs directly."
Sun is currently on the special-case "permanently dubious" list, the one that Apple used to be on before they started making the powerbooks out of sleek gray metal and all the /. editors bought them.
This means it isn't a like/hate thing, they just get to oscillate between "view what they have done as no better than dubiously useful and cast aspersions on their motivations" (where they were at three weeks ago, when there were those linux Java Desktop articles) and "blow everything they do out of proportion, declare anything they do that doesn't directly help the open source community to be treason, and pronounce them simultaneously doomed and dead" (where we are this week).
We will be staying in this second mode for at least another week or two, so stay alert for further instructions.
From the April 2, 2004 Sun Press Releases
The Toll Road Ahead : The Impact of Microsoft's New Licensing Scheme on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)
I didn't see any personal attacks there at all. He's fairly critical of the GPL for being a politically loaded license (pretty fairly in my view), but no personal attack. I consider RMS to have a peculiar definition of "free" as well. RMS made a huge mistake choosing that word, as it's so loaded, especially in a monetary sense.
Sun should have forced MS to completly cease distributing the MSJVM (which is horibly broken) and to either distribute the SUN VM or none at all.
But MS is still distributing its broken VM in some cases (specificly, various XP packs will install the JVM in some cases)
I think the best way to satify everyone (including SUN, those who want to develop JAVA itself and those who want to develop on top of JAVA) is to allow anyone to implement the various JAVA standards (including whatever sun may have a patent on etc) for free with no restictions. But, if they want to call whatever it is that they have made "JAVA", it has to go through the compatibility tests.
That way:
A.developers developing stuff in the JAVA language and against the JAVA APIs can do so and know that their stuff will run on anything labeled "JAVA".
B.developers that want to write JAVA compilers, VMs, class libraries and whatever else (including modified versions of Suns stuff) can do so totally free from any restrictions. But they cant call what they release "JAVA" unless it has gone through the compatibility tests.
and C.Sun retains control over the JAVA name and the JAVA system. The fears of sun that JAVA would fragment and you would get incompatible versions of JAVA wouldnt happen because anything that hasnt passed the tests is not JAVA and cant be labeled as such.
Also, those who want to repackage the Sun stuff without modifying it (i.e. repackage in ) can do so and you wouldnt need to do the different, wierd (compared to how things are normally installed) install for JAVA anymore.
Oh and Sun should have told MS they couldnt distribute, modify, fix or support their broken JAVA VM anymore.
Sun sold out the Java community a long time ago when they made it clear that Java will never be a public standard. It is silly to debate if Sun has sold out something that is already dead.
Wow, how far Linux has come. It started as "Linux is Not Unix" and now SUN says that "Yes: Linux is a Unix flavor."
Other notices of the Gosling's text:
He calls GPL viral, just as Ballmer did ! "Unlike GPLd software, the Java sources don't come with a viral infection clause that requires you to apply the GPL to your own code."
He is attacking RMS and Open Source. Talk about developers getting back "the energy" is not more than praise of proprietary software.
"Developers put a huge amount of energy into creating software, and if they can't get that energy back in a way that balances, then the system falls apart."
When a sales person tells you not to worry it's time to raise an alarm. Gosling says: "Relax. Have a little faith."
I can not believe this man. His company received 2 b$ and that amount of cash can make even honest people to lie.
So: what is your goal for free software licenses, and what are your GPL drawbacks?
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
How disrespectful of Gosling to accuse us of smoking drugs for being concerned for the fate of our platform. We invest time and energy developing our skills in Java and we make personal calls on things at work in favour of their platform. Given Sun's poor decisions regarding how open the platform should be we have every right to be jumpy when they make a legal settlement with Microsoft and then fail to reiterate their support for the Microsoft's prime target (the java platform).
Some of the comments were extreme, but position papers like these should not need to be a reaction to community concern, they should anticipate it.
Believe with me, my saplings.
Damn right it's a peculiar definition of free! How about all those kooks who refer to "free speech"..HAH!!!...what...are they saying that you can talk for no cost...those crazy fools.
;o)
free
I don't think James Gosling understands what RMS is talking about...he says that a developer has to get something back, otherwise the whole damn shooting match just can't continue to exist.
Well sorry, but here...have a big "WTF?". With Free Software, the developer:
1. can get paid, but sometimes doesn't.
2. enjoys doing what he does
3. knows he is benefitting society
4. knows that no-one who builds on his work can harm society
On the other hand, the proprietary software developer gets number 1, often times in greater quantities...and sometimes gets that second one.
Well excuse me if I believe the former situation is better for society and the developer Mr. Gosling.
As for the FUD about developers working on VMs conflicting with developers working on apps..what a load of dingo's kidneys! Is this not what a standard is for? VMs and standard libraries implement the standard and programmers program to the standard. If the VM doesn't implement the standard, then there is a problem with the VM.
Someone may choose to use it despite being broken because they believe in free software (gcj,kaffe), but that is their *CHOICE*. If they want to use Sun's non-Free alternative they can.
Kudos on that Java thing though
Gosling says: "We're not a bunch of moronic secret subversive Microsoft lapdogs."
Uh huh...
So why do you sound like MS when discussing the GPL? Why do you attack the political premise of the GPL? I think the "viral infection" must be between your ears, Mr. Gosling.
RMS and the GPL will be precisely what you need when you needed it. The moment has not yet arrived for you if you do not yet fully understand that assertion or why it's true.
RMS' argument is basically one of not doing any kind of free development for what ends up being something with a non-free dependency. Smart guy. His almost autistic predictability in communicating the rigors of his philosophy is truly awesome (an overused word, I know). Someday he will be looked back on by history as one of the geniuses of our era - hell, it's already like honoring the corpse in the room. Why? Because he could die today and his message will not have changed.
I fucking love that about RMS! And so should you.
... from goons , no kooks (the term seems popular on this thread) like you that would be happy to benefit from the work of others without giving anything back to society.
The software is free under the GPL, thank goodness for that.
You are not free to plagiarize other's people work. Well, cry me a river, goon, I mean , kook.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... SUN1 heavy, come about to runway 101010. You may begin your final approach. We're laying down crash foam and keeping DEC's old hangar warm for you.
If you survive, there are some jackals from Microsoft who'd like to speak with you in the lobby - after they're done spreading nails on the tarmac.
> GPL software is not "free": it comes with a license that has ...
> a strong political agenda. Like GPL software, the Java
> plaform is "free" in many senses
Yet another fudder playing around on the word
"free". Too bad it is Gosling.
It is a handicap that free beer and free thought
have to use the same adjective in English. In latin
languages, the difference is visible at first glance.
But the import of 'libre' from Spanish has failed so
far.
Can we try once more? Dear RMS, please consider
phree
ffree
Or issue an invitation to all genial word twisters.
There are a few around.
No, its just there are a lot of people from Sun who hang out here and I like to mess with them by posting a "sun sucks" message every time they are mentioned.
BTW - we've all known it for quite some time, don't try to hide it. Sun sucks.
Hi Folks,
:)
Cool down about the settlement(that is between SUN & M$Soft and their private matter.)
I am neither for/against Sun, Open source evangelists or free software advocates -- in fact I use Open source and contributing to open source also and advocate using open source like GPL,LGPL,Apache,BSD.
And I like thier philosophy(Open source), but when it comes to commercial world and as an employer of thousands of developers, as innovator for newer teachnolgies, you have some other responsibilties too.
What matters to developers is availability of an free Enviroment where developers can write/run their programs(if possible in platform independet way) and development system(compiler/etc). Java/JDK gave these things for free.
You are not bounded to release your source code as GPL -- java/JDK does not mandates it.
Java SDK was free, is free and will be free.
Using Java Specs. anybody can create JVM subjected to SUN testing creterion. Sun does not stops anybody in creating a free/opensource JVM.
Do not go phylosophical/too-moralstic, if you like your moralistic views keep them with you/ follow them religiously on your own.
A commercial company like Sun, which employs thousands of developers, has to survive in this competetive world. It is already getting beated from IBM,DELL,M$Soft, Intel, HP,etc. It has its own difficulties -- economical/strategical.
If it gives Java also, it has no control. Somebody has to have some control(if possible , just like benevolent control mechanism as we see in Linux). As a founder, Sun has perfect right to become a benevolent contoller for Java technolgy.
If people don't want to use Sun JVM, use the specs and create one JVM without using Sun's code.Nobody stops you. For the time being Sun gives you a free JDK/JRE for develeoping any type of apps.
When you compare to BitKeeper --which is used in Linux , which is free for Open source projects, lots of people did noice. But few developers tried to solve the problem of creating competeing SCMs like -- sub-version, gnu-arch. Which is a good things. So if you guys are so passionate, divert your passion on that course. It will finally leeds to more better JVMS. Partially GNU folks are already doing this.
So in comparison with BitKeeper(which itslef is another nice product), Sun JDK/JRE is free for free/opensource/closesource programs too. What do you need more from a commercial company -- its blood/etc.
So please separate your passions with practical har-life realties and don't think any UTOPIA in few days with less effort.
LazyOne
PS: I am not trying start a flame war not want to accuse any side. If you start some flame, I am not going to answer it
Analogy time: back in the 1860s.
(1) I set my slaves free. But don't abolish the institution of slavery. Former slaves unable to support themselves, "freely" sell themselves back into slavery. Back to Square One.
(2) I set my slaves free AND make it illegal to buy or sell slaves evermore. Former slaves are "forced" to remain free. Of course, I have to think about the starving free persons on my doorstep - maybe help them gain a material independence. Like I should have done when I set them free.
BSD is like option 1 - temporary freedom.
GPL is like option 2 - permanent freedom.
Now, what were you saying about the BSD licence being more free?
I am anarch of all I survey.
We fought hard to win those court cases. And we did win. Big time.
Chortle. There is nothing about Sun that is Big time after the settlement. $1.2G will do little to alter the disasterous strategic course Sun finds itself on.
He has his own rather peculiar definition of "free" that I think violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy is conserved)
This is really a bizarre statement. Stallman and the FSF clarify the meaning of their use of "free" practically everytime they use the word; it is the same meaning as is implied throughout the U.S. constitution. I don't know if it violates the first law of thermodynamics, but in 20 years it has shown itself to be a remarkable perpetual machine.
an ill wind that blows no good
Sun wanted a new computer language. Why? BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD WRITE AN OS IN IT! An OS based on an interpreted bytecode language! Was this moronic or what?
To be fair, Sun's plans included executing those bytecodes natively, on Java CPUs. So from that perspective, they were simply inventing a new reduced-instruction-set stack machine architecture, using knowledge gained from 50 years of CPU evolution. The plan was to create and market Javastations running the JavaOS natively on those Java CPUs, providing cheap dumb terminal remote access to central application servers.
Nothing moronic about that.
They abandoned plans for the Java OS around the same time they realized the dumb terminal market wasn't coming back. They still make and sell Java chips for embedded devices though.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
He calls GPL viral, just as Ballmer did !
He is attacking RMS and Open Source
Well well, look what $2billion buys you.
Sun sells out to Microsoft; a few days later a famous Sun celebrity issues a statement that they *haven't* sold out. Typical spin and damage control. I can almost see Ballmer's hand up Gosling's ass and moving his mouth for him like he was Oscar the Grouch.
Let their actions, and the result of those actions, speak for themselves -- NOT this MS-Approved sermon on the mount. Basic Fact: Sun and Microsoft are in bed together... just looking at history, Microsoft and ANYBODY in bed together is bad for Open Source and Free Software. And this is probably bad for Apple, too.
But overall, nice work from Keep-It-Closed-Gosling in trying to turn the FOSS community against itself again.
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
I recommend reading it. Its nice know that opinions posted on this site are read by big players. Steve
... that's what they'd want you to believe, isn't it? That they're not all "out to get you" so you lower your guard, and then BAM, they get you. They can't fool me, I can see what they're doing, trying to undermine our voices, but they can't, they can't, I will not fall for their pathetic, childlike tricks ...
Oh wait, someone's at the door ...
http://castorexmachina.wordpress.com - Filosofía, tecnología y cultura.
Apples and oranges. You are making bad analogies. Once I have a copy of something in the BSD lisence, it's free for life.
I believe you misunderstand the analogy because you misunderstand who it is who is the slave. It isn't the software; software can no more have freedom than my chair can. People have or lack freedom. Software is called free or not because it allows/restricts the freedom of people. So while the BSD software has a free license, when you take that BSD software and redistribute it to users under a restrictive license, you are taking away their freedoms. The GPL ensures that those people you give the software to will have those freedoms.
The purpose of the GPL is to unsure that recipients of the software have freedom for life. Because it does a better job of ensuring the freedom of the people who receive the software, I call it more free than the BSD license.
It sounds rational to call the assurance of freedom a "restriction" that necessarily results in less freedom. Call it a restriction if you want -- the conclusion that the restriction "you cannot take away the freedoms of others" results in less freedom does not follow. The analogy with slavery is meant to illustrate this; do you truly believe your inability to own slaves means you have less freedom?
The enemies of Democracy are
Meanwhile there's no sign of the "fragmentation problem" which James Gosling argues they ought to suffer from being truly Open-Source.
You might consider Prothon. http://www.prothon.org/
I don't know enough Perl to recognize a fragment from it.
OTOH, I've encountered several fragments wrt Java. Kiev is the one I think most interesting. And perhaps Kaffee, etc. should also be counted. So it appears that the current Java license rather than suppressing fragmentation is fostering it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Gosling's personal attacks on RMS are a little over the top.
I don't see how his comments on RMS could be considered personal attacks. (Saying "viral infection clause" is indeed inflammatory , but refers to the licence, not to RMS personally.)He starts off by accusing RMS of redefining "Free"
But RMS did redefine the word "free." That's why we keep having to clarify with phrases such as "free as in freedom" and "free as in beer." When someone says "free as in freedom" s/he is explicitly referring to RMS's definition of "free," even though "free as in freedom" would otherwise be ambiguous.and then proceeds to deconstruct the entire concept of Software Freedom based on the hinge that RMS is essentially a kook.
Well RMS is essentially a kook, isn't he? But kooks can change the world.You write your nine symphonies, then you die.
Seeing as how the surge of linux into the corporate space is fueled by companies with shareholders, like IBM, wouldn't that put linux in as much danger as java. Before you label me a troll, let me qualify this.
IBM does not own linux, nor do red hat, suse, mandrake, but they are major distributors of the technology. They are the companies that put up the advertising dollars and the energy to make it a viable option. They also, I would assume, contribute a good amount of development time to the linux kernel and to whatever desktop flavor they support for their distro. So if these companies shareholders said, "hey this strategy isn't making us any money", then they would have a legal obligation to stop advertising, developing, and supporting linux. Linux would not die, but it would suffer a near fatal gunshot wound to the head.
By this same logic perl is strongly tied to HP, and SCO success (I don't see perl as a real language if *nix goes away). I don't know the first thing about python so I can't speak to it, but the fact of the matter is that every project is supported financially by someone. Developers of free software don't get free lunches. So if the developer's paycheck goes away, the developer does too (Although it wouldn't be the first time someone starved to death from sitting at their computer too long).
That said, I don't think corporate control of a technology is such a bad thing. Look at the US vs. Russia. Innovation driven by profit put us years ahead of Russia's economy.
p.s.-I am not trying to suggest oss developers are communist and unpatriotic. Just that they are poor and hungry.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
"Right after they released one of the *best* Linux desktops on the market. Go figure."
That's because people more intelligent than you understand that using Linux in JDS was a quick fix until all the Solaris components are in place. At that point, JDS will become Solaris based and not Linux based.
Hi Folks,
:)
Cool down about the settlement(that is between SUN & M$Soft and their private matter.)
I am neither for/against Sun, Open source evangelists or free software advocates -- in fact I use Open source and contributing to open source also and advocate using open source like GPL,LGPL,Apache,BSD.
And I like thier philosophy(Open source), but when it comes to commercial world and as an employer of thousands of developers, as innovator for newer teachnolgies, you have some other responsibilties too.
What matters to developers is availability of an free Enviroment where developers can write/run their programs(if possible in platform independet way) and development system(compiler/etc). Java/JDK gave these things for free.
You are not bounded to release your source code as GPL -- java/JDK does not mandates it.
Java SDK was free, is free and will be free.
Using Java Specs. anybody can create JVM subjected to SUN testing creterion. Sun does not stops anybody in creating a free/opensource JVM.
Do not go phylosophical/too-moralstic, if you like your moralistic views keep them with you/ follow them religiously on your own.
A commercial company like Sun, which employs thousands of developers, has to survive in this competetive world. It is already getting beated from IBM,DELL,M$Soft, Intel, HP,etc. It has its own difficulties -- economical/strategical.
If it gives Java also, it has no control. Somebody has to have some control(if possible , just like benevolent control mechanism as we see in Linux). As a founder, Sun has perfect right to become a benevolent contoller for Java technolgy.
If people don't want to use Sun JVM, use the specs and create one JVM without using Sun's code.Nobody stops you. For the time being Sun gives you a free JDK/JRE for develeoping any type of apps.
When you compare to BitKeeper --which is used in Linux , which is free for Open source projects, lots of people did noice. But few developers tried to solve the problem of creating competeing SCMs like -- sub-version, gnu-arch. Which is a good things. So if you guys are so passionate, divert your passion on that course. It will finally leeds to more better JVMS. Partially GNU folks are already doing this.
So in comparison with BitKeeper(which itslef is another nice product), Sun JDK/JRE is free for free/opensource/closesource programs too. What do you need more from a commercial company -- its blood/etc.
So please separate your passions with practical har-life realties and don't think any UTOPIA in few days with less effort.
LazyOne
PS: I am not trying start a flame war not want to accuse any side. If you start some flame, I am not going to answer it
The difference is legal precedent. If I steal your ideas and we settle the matter out of court, the next time I steal someone's ideas precedent saying I'm a thief. This makes it easy for me to steal more often.
If the courts find me to be a thief, next time I steal they can say, "well, you've stolen before in case xyz"
Really they could together with
... don't say you you weren't warned.
* none of IBM's desk/laptop utility apps rely indows
Try running a presintalled version of Novell/Ximian Linux disto with all the Novell driectory bells and whistles, Lotus Notes clients etc etc on an IBM laptop with 1 Gb of RAM. It is pretty much as good as Windows - or better. Really. And that's *now* wait 2 more years and another billion in research and marketing from IBM alone.
The fact that the system will not run various video or image editors that users are used to is a feature: most business desktops don't need those apps and admins struggle to keep them *off* user's systems.
Anyway 5 years out: Linux on 25% of shipping desktops, 20% of laptops (Apple on on 35% Wintel on 45%) and 75% of servers
Really they could together with a few vendors and big customers and do this. Consider
... IBM is OK with that and not tied to Intel
* none of IBM's desk/laptop utility apps rely on windows
* IBM is integrator par excellence. End to end on Linux is happening.
* Linux runs great on PowerPC
Should I learn JAVA or NOT? :(
I just bought The Bible
I love how Gosling considers a license that prevents proprietary software developers from brazenly ripping off your code (GPL) to be viral. Sun's mingling with MS isn't very surprising, but it is disappointing.
I think RMS' views tend to be a bit extreme, but Gosling shows himself to be firmly planted on the opposite side of the spectrum as just another cog in the corporate greed wheel.
With this latest MS arrangement, Sun has effectively made any desire I had to learn Java pretty much go away. I've been hearing great things about Python...