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

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: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.