Will Sun's Java Go Open Source?

Ritalin16 writes "CNet report that Sun Microsystems wants to send Java closer to the open-source world, yet keep it safe from harm. "Project Peabody" adds two licenses that make it easier for outsiders to see the code. But Sun stops short of embracing open-source. Sun's licensing practices for Java are closely watched. Proponents of making Java open-source argue that a different license and development process will help accelerate usage of Java, which faces ongoing competition from Web open-source scripting tools, such as PHP, and Microsoft's .Net line of tools."

Comments

Re:Already ditched

[linguae]

For small programs, Java can get very wordy and very verbose, especially if you coming directly from C/C++, or from a language like Perl or Python. It does get annoying at first, typing in public in front of nearly every class/method and having to type in System.out.println when a simple printf() or cout or print would do suffieiently in another language. However, once you start making larger programs, Java isn't that bad, and all of those words are there for a reason. It starts making sense after a while, and it really is a nice language, once you grasp the OO concepts and get past some of the annoying differences between Java and C/C++/Python/whatever. It gets really convenient when playing around with Swing.

Put it like this, I'll bet you that you'll want to code in Java long before you want to code in Visual Basic, or even worse, COBOL. If you thought Java was verbose, Visual Basic is even more verbose, and COBOL takes verbose to another level....

Re:No, they want to keep their integrity.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

.NET is just as protected, if not more (also protected by patents probably).

Mono Developer Meeting

Miguel and Novell legal staff are currently conducting a formal patent review of mono, and the team had already split up the components of mono into separate ECMA-based and non-ECMA components (WinForms, ADO.NET, etc) to clearly define what RedHat and others could make use of. Importantly, Miguel also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components of .NET.

Mono viability

[grahamsz]

While i haven't done much research, a little casual testing suggests that opensource JREs run a lot more java software than mono runs .net software.

Re:and how's that working out?

[LarsWestergren]

Think about the "fairly popular" bit. None of these languages have become as prevalent as Java. With the industrial adoption of Java has come a huge pressure to add more stuff to it, and an increased possibility of forks when people don't get what they want added. See the many different scripting add on libraries for instance.

We have MSFT pushing their own completely incompatible java-like system.

Imitation is the sincerest for of flattery. Microsoft has cloned Java, and now you are going to blame Sun for the fact that it isn't 100% compatible.

Let's see: we have kaffe, gcj, and a handful of other open source attempts to clone java, all of which are not exactly one-hundred percent compatible, and none of which would exist if java had been open source in the first place.

I think you have to explain your reasoning a bit here, because no matter how I try to read this it sounds like you contradict yourself.
"Open source versions are forked. Therefore, if it had been open source there would be no forks"?

Re:zerg

[Anonymous Coward]

"Open" means not merely "affording unobstructed view", but also "unrestricted as to participants", "available for use", "obtainable", and "without restrictions".

So, your objection is that the "open" in "open source" can be interpreted to mean merely available to be viewed, despite the other meanings of the word open. Which is no worse than the problem "free" has, in "free software", since gratis software is quite common.

Here's the thing -- a random member of the public, hearing the word "free software", will immediately jump to the conclusion that it doesn't cost anything. Especially since the way the word is most often used in the media as "gratis", and since the Windows world is full of "freeware" -- most of it low quality software that supports the proposition "you get what you pay for".

The same person will not have any idea what "open source" means, since he is unlikely to even know what source code is. Instead of being misinformed by the term, he will notice there is something here he doesn't understand.

Which is better, from a public-education point of view? The term that immediately misleads your audience from what is meant, or the term that is a semantic nullity, in which you can pour meaning?

Hint: they're less likely to listen if you tell them their first conclusion was wrong than if you don't have to tell them they were wrong.

Distribute JRE with Linux distro

[Ranx]

Until now, you are only allowed to distribute the JRE with Java software. This has always been an problem for creators of Linux distributions who like to include Java in their distribution.

I seems Sun is gonna change their license at this point so every Linux distribution can distribute the JRE and support Java out of the box.

This is probably the most important part of the license change and I hear nobody about it.

Re:Doesn't matter much

[lokedhs]

Sun is in trouble because GCJ is getting so much better

Why would an omproved GCJ put Sun in trouble? They're getting another Java implementation done for free == more Java == good.

Now if you say they are afraid that if they BSD-license Java and then end up having the GCJ team dictating what Java is and is not, then yes. That is exactly what Sun means when they say there is a potential problem with forking.

Re:Already ditched

[say]

You know, that is an annoyance just because you do not use object orientation much. Java is strongly typed, and it has a lot of advantages. A quite usual way of creating a new variable is:

Car redCar = new Porsche();

Or the more familiar:

List list = new ArrayList();

This does also enable stuff like:

Person p = list.get(1); // even if all objects in list are Man and Woman objects!

If you don't understand the advantages of this kind of casting, you don't understand object orientation, and therefore, you don't need Java.