Slashdot Mirror
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!"
Yes more and more 4-profit's seem to be using GNU work product without proper acknowledgements.
Perhaps sourceforge can pay the FBI to run a few raids for the GNU violators!!
Where the answers are
I always finds comments like this interesting. One of the GPL complaints regarding the original BSD license was the "advertising clause." A similar clause in GPL would prevent Sun from doing this.
The real issue seems to be - are people bound by the legal requirements of the GPL or by the moral requirements of giving due credit.
Sun has always been like this. They have no real interest in open source as an ideal, or Linux as anything other than a means of marketing leverage. And lets' be honest, they've openly said as much for quite some time. Sun is out to get what they can for Sun, and they've been quite up front about that.
Of course, that doesn't mean that they won't do good things for open source along the way - their commitment to the GNOME foundation, and open sourcing StarOffice are both major contributions. Both those contributions are offered, of course, in the interests of Sun. MS is never going to port Office to Solaris, and the huge development boost StarOffice has gained in open sourcing has been great for Sun. Likewise, CDE is, in this day and age, a steaming pile of shit. Something new was needed - and if you can get that by providing a little financial support and other assistance to a group of volunteers, well, you do it.
But in a sense this is how open source has to work. Closed source companies that have no interest in open source as a philosophy can still get big gains from contributing to open source - it allows them to develop large projects that they would struggle to fund as a purely internal project. Do you really think IBM, HP et al are providing all the Linux kernel code out of the goodness of their hearts and a belief in open source? Their providing it because it helps stretch the kernel into doing the things they need it to do for their interests. In the meantime, they get all the other kernel developments everyone else supplies for free, and can focus on their own issues.
So, back to the topic - Sun isn't providing a lot of information about what really runs the JDS. Well, they're trying to make it a "Sun" product rather than another Linux flavour. Realistically I don't see it will make much difference in the long run. If the JDS is successful people will learn about what it is pieced together from one way or another.
PJ does have a point though - a little more explicit recognition that this is Linux Powered GPL software probably wouldn't go astray. I suspect you'll find that convincing Sun of that is a very hard task indeed.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Alrighty, I'm going to sound like a SUN-basher but so be it. I've been admonished here before for voicing my opinions against the company's actions but I'll type away undeterred.
.COM era, MS was fussing with SE and ME, NT was their server, and all signs pointed to SUN being The One. Heck, even colleges were changing their C curriculum over to Java!
At one point in time, I believed that SUN was going to take over the server market and squeeze Microsoft out. Don't laugh, it was the
Somewhere along the line, Linux seems to have blindsided both of them. Now SUN wants to market a Linux because their customers ask for it. At the same time, they still have their Solaris. They do hardware, too! They also do an office suite replacement, and they're holding on to that same Java (probably their saving grace).
We were wondering what they were doing -- and how they're spreading themselves thin instead of trying to define who they are by focusing on something and doing it well.
Then they struck that deal with Microsoft and we're left wondering how this whole Linux thing will pan out. Time will tell, but I'm not expecting them to suddenly be all flowery happy about embracing Open Source.
But let me play devil's advocate.
I know a lot about computers, but over the years I have learned TONS by watching my parrents, neighbors, and sister (all MAJOR computer n00bs) interact with the things.
"I don't care if I can see the source, how can I get to Google?" That's the kind of thing that I'd hear from my parents (especially my dad). Bombarding people with information about how it's all free and it's LINUX and you can do all sorts of stuff like giving parts away that you can't with MS software and it's LINUX and blah blah blah and it's LINUX will get you nowhere. You'll just annoy the hell out of "Aunt Tillie" (to borrow a person). They want it to WORK. They don't want to be told it runs Linux constantly. They don't want to know the source is available. They could care less they could copy the bianary for the Gimp off their PC and give it to a friend because it's F/OSS.
Now, I can understand having the computer tell the user it's Linux. Maybe once (at install, or the first time a user uses their account) is fine. If the user is a power user, they will find that fact out and all the things they can do with it fast through looking on the internet, digging through help files, and poking around the file system. Letting them know that it's Linux when they go off the beaten path is fine. Let them know they have rights and such if you wish.
But please, DON'T BEAT THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT. I can tell you from expiriance the the VAST majority of users won't care. They just want their computer to work. They don't need to know all that stuff. Aunt Tillie doesn't want to know, my parents don't want to know. My neighbors don't want to know, and my little sister could care less (for now, she's getting better). The other side of the Linux desktop that we'll see soon (and are seeing now) is Corporate Linux Desktops.
And you know what? As a boss (assuming I'm one, I'm not), I could CARE LESS if my employees know they're running Linux. I don't care if they know it's all GPL. I want them to DO THEIR JOBS. If they ask "Can I take a copy of this home with me?" of the IT department, THEY can tell the user that stuff (and those questions do get asked in schools and businesses). The IT department will know it's Linux and all the benefits it holds.
In short: The techies will know, don't worry about them. The Aunt Tillies won't care, don't worry about them. The people in the middle should know, but just a notice here or there; don't assult them. For what I understand Sun to be aiming at (Corp. desktops and maybe low cost computers for the Aunt Tillies of the world) I think they're doing fine.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it
... still waiting.
Sounds to me like Sun's actually on track to make Linux vaguely usable. Hiding all that crap is exactly what needs to happen if you want someone to actually *use* it.
I heard 10 years ago that Linux was going to take over the world "in a few years".
Please, it's good for what it is, but it isn't everything to everyone.
You zealots are worse than the Mac zealots, or (gasp!) even the OS/2 zealots.
Used PAM to login to a Linux box lately? PAM comes from Sun.
Yes yes, I understand all about open source, fairness, and other GNU/Linuxy terms; and I understand that, in theory, I should immediately throw off my chains and start coding stuff gratis, because information wants to be free. However, in reality, Windows' proprietary desktop is still better than whatever Linux currently has to offer -- to speak nothing of OS X. So, I have a choice: become a martyr, and torture myself with GNU/Linux each day, in the name of the OSS ideology; or, forget the slogans and use the best tool for the job. My name is not "Ghandi", so I choose the second option.
I think a major reason why Linux is suffering on the desktop right now is that most OSS hackers expect people to choose the first option. Well, that's not going to happen. Most people are like me: selfish bastards who just want to get some work done, or play some game, or whatever. You can't win them over with just slogans.
>|<*:=
Anyone who thinks that Sun shouldn't have a right to exercise the same rights under the GPL as you or I or even SCO is WRONG. The whole point of the GPL is the openness of it. Unless Sun specifically abuses the GPL (as many claim SCO has), they can do what they like in regards to distribution. I say: More power to them!
As much as I respect RMS this is one area I do disagree with him. This whole branding business started with his insistence on Linux being called GNU/Linux. Honestly, who the hell cares WHAT it's called? RMS needs to have more faith in his own cause minus ego. Isn't the point more intellectual in that it's FREE?
It bothers me not in the least that 'X' company wants to add some proprietary stuff in. Huh. Look at KDE - wasn't THAT considered non-GPL for the longest time? Yes, GNOME ended up being created as a result, but then KDE was opened up as well.
Look, no matter what Sun, Microsoft, or anyone else does there is one simple fact: You Can't Fight FREE. You can modify it. You can re-brand it. You can put your own obfusications around things. But the simple fact remains that no one would even be considering Java Desktop in the first place were it not for MS's own proprietary (READ: non-free) OS. No matter what Sun does, the alternatives still exist.
If Sun's not careful, they'll end up being marginalized like MS - no worries there. If they do this right, they'll be able to have a branded, supported, standardized version of Linux that they can support and the customers will love (hopefully).
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
gzip (can't read compressed data from/write compressed date to a termina) and ls don't behave interactively. rm does, though, if you use the -i switch, and it certainly doesn't print a copyright message. Bash obviously is a valid example, since it is highly interactive.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nevermind that Sun has contributed dozens of Engineers and probably a significant sum of money to the Gnome project. (Which last time I checked is open source).
Lets also forget the fact that without Sun's money/effort, Gnome Usability (ie. HIG) would be nowhere near as good as it currently is. Sun is a major backer of Gnome, and a corporate contributor to the Gnome Foundation..
Instead, lets bash Sun for not sufficiently acknowledging it's Linux roots in the JDS. (Something that the GPL does not require)
just because it's GPL and you allow people to use and disribute your work for free, does not mean you are giving away your copyright. you still own the copyright on that product, if you disribute it you MUST acknowledge it, and if you modify it you MUST provide the source. forget SCO, the next big legal battle will be greedy/stupid companies thinking they can take take take and not comply with the GPL. This kind of attitude is so ingrained in modern corp. thinking it is enevitable.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I didn't see the beef in most of the comments, but the one point that stood out to me was "You really could get the CD and run it without ever 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."
This kinda disturbs me. In that, I agree with PJ's comment. They are packaging a lot of GPL stuff without letting people know they can take some of the stuff and use it with freedom to do so. That means they can lift the code if they want to and use it. The packaging is not violating anythign, but it IS deceptive, and sure doesn't help OSS much. The packaging makes it look like it's all their product and not just their packaging.
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
Hey, Sun really does have the rings!. html
http://java.sun.com/features/1998/07/ring-project
Exactly!
I think one of the reasons the OpenSource community likes Sun is because they are the lesser evil.
In the eyes of the developer community, they are better than say, Microsoft or even IBM simply because Sun's standards are open, or at the very least more open than the competition.
Is it because that they are the underdogs? Maybe so. But be assured that tomorrow if they do come to the top, they will be ostracized even more.
And another thing is that, I do not think we can blame Sun for what they've done. Hey, you give your source out? That in no way means I have to or let you do what you let me do.
Why, pray tell, would that audience care where the product came from?
To be flame-worthy with an analogy: I'm wearing a cotten/polyester blend shirt right now. I could care less who figured out how to make it so my shirt doesn't shrink in the dryer.
They may not care about the GPL, but at least their up-to-date on their other licenses. :-)
Wouldn't surprise if down the road Sun buys SCO (remember they have a nice option to buy quite a bit of SCO already) for their "unix IP" with their newly found $2BB cash.
We already know that Sun wants to be and claims to be the #1 Linux Desktop Play
I think Sun's strategy (w/ help from MSFT,SCO) is to be the _only_ linux vendor.
C# and the .NET CLI are ECMA standards. Web Services/WSDL is a W3C standard. Java is uhhhh.... not a standard.
What was that about more open standards than the competition?
--K
So what keeps Linux from splitting apart like the Unices of old, were everyone tried to "be different" and in the process loss the market to microsoft? Wouldn't that be history repeating itself, were a lot of the time you had problems running apps for one unix on another because of the "let's be different"? Were the training was split because what you learned on one couldn't be carried over easily?
My question is what remedies can be made realistically to enforce this? I assume you can revoke the license but what about compensatory damages? What is the real incentive to adhere to the terms if a company such as Sun has no fear that substantive repurcussions will result?
The GPL is a license to distribute and modify said software. If Sun violates the GPL, it has the same choices as every other group that has violated the GPL:
or
As we all know, copyright law imposes severe penalties for anyone caught doing number 3: up to $150K/infringement (i.e., copy of the CD). If even one author complains, that's one possible infringement. If N programmers complain, that's up to N*$150K per CD. If a dozen programmers complain, Microsoft's $1.95B payoff goes out the window after Sun distributes around 1100 CDs.
Is that enough "teeth" for you?
Now do you see why copyright laws are so broken? Trust me, Sun does not want to risk willful infringement if the community starts raising a fuss with pitchforks in hand. It's not likely to happen, but the potential costs of losing that case are very severe indeed.
-jdm
P.S.: I'm sure spelling it "Amerika" really wins you the hearts and minds of those other than the choir.
...so better collect the quotes and information now so when Sun goes SCO we will be ready for them.
GrokLaw is PJ's blog, sometimes she does bloggy things. That's her perogative. She also happens to provide an awful lot of truly useful information and analysis on certain subjects, though, so Groklaw is still worth reading.
No, this shouldn't be newsworthy, but these days on Slashdot it would appear the editors consider anything that bashes Sun to be newsworthy. Even if it's a blog post.
Besides, it's interesting. This Java Desktop System is a huge deal. First off, Sun, one of the last few Big UNIX general vendors, is not only making movements toward Linux but actually selling Linux as a new product. This hints at a decent number of things about what the UNIX vs Linux battles of the next ten years are going to look like. Second off, this is an attempt to make a desktop distribution of Linux by a company with the funding and concentration to actually pull it off.. either of these two things makes JDS a crucially important development whether it succeeds or fails, but it's getting very little attention in either the "real world" or the open-source news. I think the whole JDS thing is underreported, honestly. This article might not be the best analysis of JDS out there, but it's something.
PJ does really seem to hate Sun though. I'm not sure why. I think it's probably because they gave a big donation to SCO's legal funds (pretty reasonable reason to hate them, actually).
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I agree. For an example. Go to the Jpackage site and notice the non-free section. You need those to get a lot of the free stuff to work correctly. now notice what you have to do. Chase the source code down so you can create an RPM. Now try finding the source for JMI. Nope just a spec. I had to search in someone's CVS to find a JMI.jar in order to upgrade ArgoUML(1).
(1) I also had to tell my package manager to ignore any dependency errors, kind of breaking the point of having a package manager. And all this is because of SUN's pissy license.
They could at least integrate web start into the package manager.
Also for the last time, the open-sourcing Java issue is about open-sourcing the language development process (and removing licensing restrictions along these lines). It is not about open-sourcing their JVM implementation. While they did not agree to this, they also didn't necessarily disagree. Why not yell at IBM to open-source their JVM? Sun is defending attacks on the Java Community Process, and the restrictions on language modification (certification, etc). IBM wants the ability to muck with the java spec and create their own forked language; they can then leverage their websphere business to force developers to code for their systems, and lock-in customers.
I'm surprised at PJ. Sun is well within the limits of the GPL. If programmers want free publicity when people use their software, CHANGE THE LICENSE. Just know that it won't be GPL-compliant.
Oh, and I for one am perfectly happy with the Java license. If you think about it, it makes sense-- I write a programming language that is designed to be cross-platform; if you make a new implementation of it make that compatible with me (or get your code somewhere else).
So if Sun ever does "go SCO", they will have something to take to court.
No sig, sorry.
You're right, of course. There's one thing, and to appreciate it, you have to imagine these two scenarios (albeit with a strong pro-Sun bias):
Scenario #1.
CTO: "Linux! I keep hearing about Linux, and how cheap it is. Our competitors across the street are claiming a 200% performance-per-dollar increase over these Unix workstations. Get me some of that!"
IT: "OK, it's looking really good and our vendors are supporting it. What distro do you want?"
CTO: "Huh? What do the vendors support?"
IT: "Well, most of 'em support some version of RedHat, but most of those versions aren't supported by RedHat anymore. This app. vendor promotes SuSE, but this other one uses the Debian packaging system."
CTO: "I...see. OK, what about stepping back and just replacing some of the desktop PCs for the basic users? Email, wordprocessing, and web browsing. Can we do that?"
IT: "Sure. KOffice or OpenOffice? For a browser, we can chose Mozilla's stable or current versions, or Firefox which is really mozilla; or we can go with Opera. Email will depend on if we need to plug into our Exchange servers."
CTO: "Well, this is starting to sound iffy. How long will it take before we can test it to see if it works?"
IT:" We should be able to get a proper pilot test within two months, if things go well. Five if they don't."
CTO: "Fuck that! We're staying AWAY from Linux, and next year we'll buy our poor competitors for $0.10 on the dollar!"
Now, Scenario #2. Sun's answer.
CTO: "Linux! I keep hearing about Linux, and how cheap it is. Our competitors across the street are claiming a 200% performance-per-dollar increase over these Unix workstations that YOU sold me! I'm gonna get me some of that, unless you can talk really fast."
Sun: "Not at all. We can replace your base desktop users (email, office suite, web browsing) with preconfigured Intel/AMD systems. All testing, development, patching, and integration is done by us. We'll provide a pilot by next Tuesday, provide phone support at no cost, and meet with you at the end of it. If you like the pilot, the software bundle including tested, packaged updates will run $100 per desk, less in quantity. We guarantee it will run with your Exchange servers without modification. Hardware contract will be wholescale replacement on a 48 hour turnaround basis."
CTO: "THIS is worth my money! Where do I sign?"
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
RealPlayer is closed-source, and available with JDS. Don't like it? Don't get it.
Ditto for StarOffice. You've got the Sun-sponsored OpenOffice.org (mainly staffed by Sun developers).
Where is anybody denying the GPL? The GPL expressly allows such an approach, indeed seems, if anything, quite in favour of it. Will you be bashing RMS next for selling tapes of Emacs?
He didn't say "don't add", he said "don't *just* add" - GNOME's internationalisation would be half what it currently is without Sun developers adding their contribution, let alone accessability, which seems to be driven almost entirely by people with @sun.com addresses.
He's stating Sun's view, not claiming that it's MS's view. Where does he say that MS view it that way? He's saying that, whether MS like it or not, Sun's agreement with MS can benefit JDS (seems pretty obvious, and fully in line with the letter and meaning of the GPL).
If you look at the relationship between Sun and MS, it's pretty clear how Sun view the Evil Empire. I don't think they've suddenly bought a pair of rose-tinted glasses.
If that was from RMS, it would be interpreted in the exactly oppsite way that JP interprets it. Granted, "either choice is a safe choice" is quite clearly untrue. Don't know what he'd just smoked at that point.
And isn't that what we really get from F/OSS? Would we all hate MS as much if .DOC was an open standard with closed source? .HTML is an open standard, so we can have Mozilla, Opera, even IE (when it chooses to implement standards).
Yes, there's a significant difference when it comes to certain points - I can incorporate your code into my own "larger" code, but in reality, open standards pretty much allow that already.
One major point of Free/Open Source software is that Sun can take Mozilla, GNOME, improve them, and feed them back to the community (who don't necessarily want *every* change Sun chose to make, but are desperate for the internationalisation and accessibility that Sun need to add to sell it to the standards their customers expect). The GPL means they can do it, and means they have to feed it back.
Are we getting offtopic here? Why do I need to remind PJ what the GPL says? Methinks PJ's got some FUD in her mind.
"'The . in .com' wants to destroy the internet". That's a fine quote. Where did you find it in the previous statements?
The only statement in this paragraph anyone with any knowledge
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
You really could get the CD and run it without every knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it
And when the BSD license had the clause "you must point out this software is BSD licensed" that was bad.
And when the X license changed in such a way that GNU/Linux vendors like RedHat would have to identify in big bold letters 'this CD has XFree86 code as a part of it', this too is bad.
Sun does the same thing - not 'giving props', and Sun is bad?
Hyprocrite much?
As the live cd boots, for a brief, and I do mean brief less than 1 second flash on an almost non-existant command prompt as the graphical environment takes over the words GNU/Linux flash on the screen if you look for it closely. Took me three boots to even notice it! Next there is a draconian EULA that appears to have been written, if I didn't know better, with great help from Microsoft as restrictive as it is. It even explicitly forbids copying the eval live cd to share with others. This is the first Linux live distro I have EVER seen with such a restriction. Perhaps the ability to write such draconian EULAs was a portion of the "technologies" that Sun is cross licensing from Micro$oft?
In the EULA there is absolutely NO mention of the GPL in any way shape or form other than a pointer to a directory in which you can find some "various other licenses" that may apply to certain portions of the software provided on the CD. It takes some real searching to find a copy of the GPL on that disk. I am sure that Sun's (M$'s?) lawyers have made sure that they complied to the strict letter of compliance with the GPL but they have not even come close to compliance with the spirit!
I am thoroughly disgusted with the lengths to which Sun has gone to obliterate and hide the true roots of their "Java Desktop System".
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
And another thing is that, I do not think we can blame Sun for what they've done. Hey, you give your source out?
Quick pop quiz: who makes the most money from Java? Sun, right? Wrong. It's IBM.
Sun sells Java, but IBM sells services around it, and they make a ton of money doing it.
It's difficult to sell the idea, but had Sun completely opened Java and set up a services business around it, they might be farther ahead than they are now. I say "might" because IBM already had a large services business built, etc., but let's face it, they had to start somewhere.
My main problem with Sun is the whole "we're open and you're not" thing, which they started years ago and then segued into a "we're kind of like open source and you're not" when that was the big buzzword. They've always been a proprietary software company and probably always will be. That's fine, that's their gig, I just want them to be honest about it.
Do you have ESP?
First, the GPL doesn't state you have to be able to -download- the source to anything. Only that it be made freely available.
... you seem a bit conflicted here ... Sun is bad for having embraced GNOME for Solaris, but Sun is bad for not having put Java Desktop on Solaris x86 ... ?
... so there is nothing Sun is hiding or making proprietary at the Linux level. There is some IP going into management utilities and improved translations and such but from a GPL level nothing is being locked away from you and they do not try to stop you from distributing those GPL'ed parts. However Java Desktop as a whole has IP that has been added beyond the Linux/GPL bits that Sun has every right to keep to themselves.
Second, Sun contributes changes back to the GPL projects themselves.
Third, why should Sun have had to embrace Linux to embrace GNOME, which is how I interpret your issue with how Sun first embraced GNOME?
Fourth, Sun will be using Java Desktop on Solaris x86 as well as Linux
Fifth, yeah, I agree, Sun is a bit confused on the overall picture.
Sixth, Everything else that Sun uses in Java Desktop today that is not a Sun contribution comes directly from SuSE
BTW, when was the last time you saw an end user (legitimately) distributing Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Sun isn't the only one who doesn't make it easy to get your hands on the product without paying a license.
I personally think Sun needs to do a better job of publicizing what they are doing for the community and need to do a better job of making Java Desktop specifically more -readily- available in source form beyond relying on SuSE, but they aren't doing anything that should get your gizzard turning.
I wonder if you can see the obvious conflict in these statements. (Hint: You're not making money using the GPL - you're making it in spite of the GPL by working around it).
Now say I make an application and release it under the GPL. I start to sell this application and also sell support. You come along and try to sell it for half the price. Do you think people would buy a non-official version from you?
That's how a market works - I can offer the same product at a reduced rate. In terms of offering support, support is a really shitty way of making money from software development. You've got a lot of costs to recover if you're only charging for support, and it only works on a large scale (e.g. RedHat).
Stallman is undoubtedly one of the most influential programmers ever, but his righteous attitude can be amusing. It's always funny to make fun of "the old man" behind his back.
I hope he doesn't change though; his stubborness is an important counterforce that keeps commercial software in check.
I'm not sure how the meaning of Open changed, but it sure seems to have, at least around slashdot, or assorted GNU/Minions.
The term "open source" never changed meaning: it didn't exist prior to the open source movement. The people who created the term have the right to define it.
And the people who created the term aren't "GNU/Minions" anyway, they are the open source movement. The GNU project and the FSF actually don't like open source licenses, they like free ("libre") licenses. Now, the term "free software" is misleading, but not very: "free (libre)" software is also pretty much "free (as in beer)", but it comes with additional rights for the user.
But there has been a nefarious attempt at changing the meaning of the term "open", namely in "open standard". An "open standard" is a standard that anybody can implement without obligation to anyone else. And there, it is Sun that has been trying to change the meaning, in order to mislead people into thinking of their highly proprietary system as an "open system".
The Sun Java implementation is not open source, nor is the Java platform in any way an open standard. The fact that Sun Java is not open source doesn't really matter much, but the fact that the Java platform is not an open standard is a huge problem because it legally threatens any attempt at open source or even commercial alternatives.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
The term "open source" never changed meaning: it didn't exist prior to the open source movement.
I was using the phrase "open source" in the early 90s to describe changes in the software world. I remember having a conversation with a client around 1991 who wanted me to modify a program. I explained that while many early programs written in interpreted languages (BASIC, DBase3+) were open source, most current programs were closed source, and the effort to modify them was enormous and probably illegal. I did not use the term "open source" until the contrast with "closed source" programs was needed.
I used "open source" around 1996 to describe HTML and JavaScript. Someone wanted me to hide the code for their web site, and I told them that was impossible because all the code on the web had to be open source so browsers could see it.
The new definition of "Open Source" is from the 1998, and describes a political movement that wants programs to be open source.
---
"free software" could be used without paying for it. The next level was "shareware" with its free trial, but please pay. Then "commercial" with pay now and hope you like it.
"Free Software" is a political movement that wants programs to be open source, and somehow prevent commercial programmers from using any of the code in closed source programs.
---
I do not understand the controversy about Java. Sun owns the trademark. They allow others who fit their standards to use the trademark. IBM wrote their own compiler, and there are others.
Applets and applications are usually easily decompiled; they are not truly open source, but the well-defined interpreted language makes it difficult to hide code. Servlets are not distributed, so it is more difficult to read the code. Code from most Java programs will easily fit into other projects, so sharing is easy. I like that I can use the same code in a browser, on a web server, and on a desktop just by changing the interface.
The Sun Java implementation is not open source, nor is the Java platform in any way an open standard.
Anyone can write software using Java without paying for any software. Anyone can write a Java compiler, and can get it approved for some money or tons of public relations. So Java is a free standard. But Sun controls it, so it is not an open standard.
Will there be an "Open Standards" organization that wants all standards to be open soon? Or is that implied by the "Open Source" movement?
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
SUN has a responsibilty to ensure that its users understand fully their rights and responsibilities when it comes to use of the software they are selling. They don't seem to mind flashing their own EULA in front of the user at install but the GPL which covers so much of the distribution is amazingly absent?