Criticizing Sun's Java Desktop System

An anonymous reader writes "Uh-oh. PJ is not a happy camper. 'Sun has made its choice and opted for The Way Things Used To Be,' she declares in a Linux Viewpoint at LinuxWorld. 'It's a new world, and Sun is not in it,' she declares. Her gripe is with the Java Desktop System, which she argues is grossly cavalier with the GPL and doesn't properly acknowledge its roots. Her main objection: 'You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have.' Feisty read, as ever, from Groklaw's founder and editor. That Jonesian coinage 'GNU/Linuxy' is worth the read alone!"

Comments

GPL, Linux and commercial distros

[gnuman99]

Most commercial distros would like to keep the source code secret or at least modifications and software that makes these distributions unique. This is not something specific to Sun's Linux distro. Just look at Lindows (uhm, Linspire). They prefer to have a marketshare and not just, "I'm using Linux from Sun" or "I'm using Linux from Lindows". They want people to say, "I'm using Java Desktop. And what is Linux again?"

Re:GPL Acknowledgment.

[AJWM]

No, but it does say this:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

[a & b skipped]

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License.

I don't know if Sun is violating the letter of the GPL, but it sounds like they might be violating the spirit.

Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can look at the source, and contribute back changes, it is "Open". What it is not is "Free".

Wrong.

Open Source(tm) is a trademark in the USA and/or other countries. If your license does not fit the Open Source(tm) definition, you can not legally call your product Open Source(tm).

It might be open, but that doesn't mean it's Open Source(tm).

All this is to be confused with Free Software, which is basically the same thing but RMS doesn't like to admit it.

Sun and GNU/Linux

[ValourX]

A while back I interviewed some people at Sun for content related to reviews on JDS and Solaris 9 x86. During one conversation I made the mistake of referring to JDS as a "Linux distribution" and I was quickly corrected:

"Java Desktop System is not a Linux distribution, it is an Operating Environment."

I asked what the difference was, and the response was something I didn't quite understand -- a lot of talk about desktop philosophy and how Sun didn't really want people to think of JDS as having anything to do with the GNU project or Linux in general.

I have here a folder for JDS version 1. It was based on SuSE 8.1 and it didn't work on any of my modern test machines so I only used it once and decided not to review it because it didn't work all that well and I don't like doing negative bash-fest reviews. Nowhere on the folder or at any point during the installation or in the operating environment itself do you ever see the word "Linux."

And the license agreement governing the whole product is much like the one for Solaris except for the parts that are already under other licenses. No, JDS is not even close to being Free Software, but then again Red Hat EL is along the same lines. I don't see anyone making a bad guy out of them.

-Jem

Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway?

[Chops]

[chops@blenching /tmp]$ apt-get source pam
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Need to get 536kB of source archives.
Get:1 http://http.us.debian.org unstable/main pam 0.76-19 (dsc) [806B]
Get:2 http://http.us.debian.org unstable/main pam 0.76-19 (tar) [425kB]
Get:3 http://http.us.debian.org unstable/main pam 0.76-19 (diff) [111kB]
Fetched 3B in 0s (69B/s)
dpkg-source: extracting pam in pam-0.76
[chops@blenching /tmp]$ cd pam-0.76
[chops@blenching /tmp/pam-0.76]$ grep -ri 'sun.*micro' .
./Linux-PAM/doc/pam_appl.sgml:Thanks are also due to Sun Microsystems, especially to Vipin Samar and
./Linux-PAM/doc/pam_modules.sgml:Thanks are also due to Sun Microsystems, especially to Vipin Samar and
./Linux-PAM/doc/pam_source.sgml:Thanks are also due to Sun Microsystems, especially to Vipin Samar and
./Linux-PAM/doc/specs/rfc86.0.txt: Sun Environment", Sun Microsystems Technical Paper,
[chops@blenching /tmp/pam-0.76]$

PAM was pretty much the same situation as Java -- Sun invented something good and released it under a non-free license, and the GNU/Linux people (in this case, it really was the Linux people specifically) reimplemented it. The full quote from that documentation is:

Thanks are also due to Sun Microsystems, especially to Vipin Samar and
Charlie Lai for their advice. At an early stage in the development of
Linux-PAM, Sun graciously made the documentation for their
implementation of PAM available. This act greatly accelerated the
development of Linux-PAM.

Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway?

[whoever57]

The design of PAM is from Sun. The open source implementation had nothing to do with them.

Which is exactly Jonathon Schwartz' point. Sun supports open standards not open source.

Re:GPL Acknowledgment.

[Shurhaian]

As a sibling has posted, the quote of the license is not currently accurate.

GPL

The article c) as posted is actually under section 2.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) and b) also skipped, but still required for actual compliance.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Emphasis mine.

This, I think, is why bash and such can get away with not showing a license when run; they normally don't announce their readiness to receive commands, it's assumed and/or self-evident. IANAL and I am not part of the FSF.

I think the more damning portion is actually what comes right after 2c:

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Emphasis again mine.

Re:Can someone let me in on the joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

Betweening writing Emacs, GCC, GDB, Make, other apps, founding FSF, drafting the GPL, creating copyleft, and staring & sustaining the GNU project which gave us an operating system - he's earned my respect.

I'll keep reading his essays. thanks all the same.

Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway?

[Bob9113]

If you can look at the source, and contribute back changes, it is "Open".

Either you meant "open" or you are mistaken. Open with a capital "O" refers to Open Source, the meaning of which can be found here.

Briefly:
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

As an example, most of Microsoft's open source work is not Open Source, as it typically places restrictions on derived works and redistribution.

Re:Well, you know, it's a blog.

[FunWithHeadlines]

"PJ does really seem to hate Sun though. I'm not sure why."

Yeah, I'm seeing lots of comments about the /. submission about what PJ wrote, and very little about what PJ actually said. If you have read Groklaw for a while, you'll know that she distrusts Sun because of some very anti-FOSS statements that spokespersons there have made in the last year. Since she is in favor of FOSS, this worries her. But since Sun makes lots of schizo statements back and forth on the subject, sometimes they sound friendly to FOSS. That makes /. readers think Sun is cool, not to mention they make neat hardware.

But if they are going to turn against FOSS, it's better to know sooner rather than later. That's what PJ is warning about, and answering /.-type critics who keep telling her to shut up about Sun. But she won't, and time may even prove her correct. We'll see. But it isn't about hatred, it's about warning people of a potential threat to FOSS. Since their recent deal with Microsoft, a lot more warning bells should be going off around here.

Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Source(!tm) is NOT a trademark in the USA -- the application was rejected.

OSI-Approved(tm) is the trademark.

java.com

[Slurm]

Next time, have your friend head to www.java.com for the JRE. java.sun.com is aimed at developers - it says so right at the top of the page. www.java.com is aimed at regular users. It doesn't say that, but there is a reassuring picture of a cow in some kind of tractor beam at the top of the page.

Clue-By-Four for BSD Zealots

[sparkz]

Provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty

And where do we have a statemtent that they do not?
PJ claims there's nothing on the cover (I haven't seen it) and then dismisses the EULA (mentioning the GPL in the EULA would be irrelevant, as has been previously overdiscussed on /. and elsewhere).

Every package states its license terms. I'm running JDS at the moment (sorry, /. don't seem to want me to use the PRE tag), and a full "rpm -qi" is apparently "junk"...

steve@fred:~> rpm -qi bash
Name : bash License: GPL

That advertises quite clearly that it's "License: GPL". Sun's changes are more to the GNOME side of things, though; no one package (they're all GPL, trust me) so we'll pick one:

steve@fred:~> rpm -qi gnome-desktop
Name : gnome-desktop License: LGPL

That's LGPL. A GPL Gnome package? Okay then:

steve@fred:~> rpm -qi gnome-media
Name : gnome-media License: GPL

I'm sure Sun's lawyers would love an out-and-out accusation, as it would give them 5 minutes worth of entertainment.

Re:Why is Sun an Open Source Sweetheart, anyway?

[drinkypoo]

Windows is not open source to all. They have limited agreements to provide source to specific entities. Those entities who are entitled to the source can doubtless submit patches to Microsoft, which will be promptly filed to NUL:. Hence, it's a goofy example.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm probably a lousier programmer than you are. :)