Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Not Satisfied with Sun's New Java License

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the talking-coffee-related-smack dept.

twofish writes "According to a Register article Sun Microsystems' new GNU/Linux-friendly Java license does not go far enough for Red Hat. Brian Stevens, Red Hat CTO, says Sun should have open-sourced Java instead. The new license does have the support of Canonical (main Ubuntu sponsor), Gentoo and Debian." From the article: "He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project, to bring affordable computing to children in developing nations. Negroponte wants only open source software on the machines, according to Red Hat, which is a member of the project."

39 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. That's kind of a cheap shot... by nebaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This may not be a popular sentiment here, but I think the statement the failure of open source Java
    means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PC's ... to bring affordable computing
    to children in developing nations     is a bit of a cheap shot. The way it is stated, it makes Sun look
    like some sort of terrible ogre, that is denying children access to computers, when it is the program
    creator that does not allow Java on the laptops.

    It is similar to the argument people make saying "corporations that make genetically modified food
    are causing people in Africa to starve", in countries that forbid the import of genetically modified
    food. The policy, not the companies making the food, are what is causing the lack of that particular
    food to be used.

    Don't get me wrong, it would be great if Sun made Java open source, but what they have now is not evil.
    The software is free as in beer to use, and as such would add no more cost to the laptops, if installed, it would just conflict
    with the philosophy of the program's founder.

    Also, if you want to write your own JVM, Sun has written books to let you do just that.
    It is not an easy project, it is similar to JBoss in complexity, but JBoss was written. If the CTO at
    RedHat was that concerned about Java not being on the laptops, he could have part of his company work
    on an open source JVM implementation. That company has a lot of resources, and would be more able
    to manage a project of that complexity than several freelance developers in their free time.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by illumin8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The way it is stated, it makes Sun look like some sort of terrible ogre, that is denying children access to computers, when it is the program creator that does not allow Java on the laptops.

      Exactly. It's a bit vindictive to say "Sun is preventing kids from running Java", when there is nothing preventing them from freely distributing Java with every kid's laptop, other than their open source only rule that was arbitrarily made by themselves.

      From TFA:
      Negroponte wants only open source software on the machines, according to Red Hat, which is a member of the project

      You can't always have your cake and eat it too. How about a compromise? Only open-source where possible, but free as in beer is OK if there is no better open-source alternative. This would allow people to use a mostly free OS, but still use quality closed-source yet free as in beer software like Java.

      Sadly, the Linux community is sometimes blinded by zealotry in cases like this.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    2. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by sgholt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am thinking that Negroponte probably doesn't really care, Redhat on the other hand would benefit from a open source java....in this situation I don't see why Redhat/Negroponte are being so anal about it...

    3. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree. The idea is to help raise the third world up, not keep them dependant on the first world. By only giving them free software, we give them the ability to make changes, to adapt the technology to their needs. It also gives them an entrance into the IT market, one of the few tech areas that can be entered into with no formal training and done from anywhere in the world. These are very good reasons to say OSS only. If Java wants to be a player there, that up to them. But OSS only is the right option for the laptop program.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    4. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by masklinn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the funniest part is that the license seems to have Debian's support... and the Debian guys are just about the "worst" OSS zealots (in Stallman's sense of OSS) you can find, I'd like to get more infos of that from guys who read it but if the debian-legal madmen have endorsed or considered Java's new license "good enough"... duh...

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    5. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by jrumney · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It is similar to the argument people make saying "corporations that make genetically modified food are causing people in Africa to starve", in countries that forbid the import of genetically modified food.

      Ever heard of terminator seeds? Seen any of the research about how they can spread to contaminate non-patented crops? Corporations that make GM food are causing people in Africa to starve whether countries allow the import of their crops or not.

    6. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, no one of those "debian-legal madmen" you're talking about endorses that license. In fact, only a single person (although it's the DPL) dared to say that it's acceptable for Debian's non-free section, and even then after a personal meeting with a Sun's person on the DebConf.

      The license has pretty few clauses that are good enough even for non-free; on the other hand, those "zealots" you're bashing typically have problems with one or two issues per license. Sun's piece of crap is actually worse than their previous license.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    7. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By only giving them free software, we give them the ability to make changes, to adapt the technology to their needs. It also gives them an entrance into the IT market

      I'd agree with most of that but see no need for the "only" part. Give them OSS. However, I'd think the goal of such a project would be to expose them to technology. The more you can expose them to, the better of they are. If they want to make changes, etc and learn how to do all that then great they can do that with the OSS provided, but I don't see how you can argue that they'd be better prepared to enter the IT market by ignoring a huge segment of if (closed source is still the vast majority of the IT market). The choice doesn't need to be exclusive, you can give them both. Heck, if available for free (and available for the OS) I'd say you should ship it with MS software as well since thats the most used software in the world. If you want to help them, than give them as much as you can including stuff that will give them experience with the most popular technologies in the world. If its not so much about helping them, but more about proving a point or pushing your personal views, well then thats different.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    8. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by samkass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By only giving them free software, we give them the ability to make changes, to adapt the technology to their needs.

      That's a good argument, but not a good one for *only* giving them free software. What about the idea of giving them the best tool for the job? Wouldn't that that raise them up a bit? Such as a copy of Eclipse running on Java? Or do you want them to be stuck in emacs/C++ land, thinking that will help "raise the third world up" faster?

      It also gives them an entrance into the IT market

      The absolute BEST way to do THAT would be to load Windows on these machines.

      No, the open source rule is arbitrary, petty, and will ultimately hurt the recipients of these machines.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    9. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Rufty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh no! Sterility is spreading - soon everything will have inherited it and, erm, *wait just one minute here* ...
      Sterility - heritable ? Spreading???? WFT?!?!?!?

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    10. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by SnowZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get a fucking clue, you American cuntbag!

      Where are you from, coward? Obviously your nation has taught you tolerance and tact.

      open source != free software

      No shit. I call Debian open source, because by RMS's definition, it includes things that are not Free Software. In fact, Debian's (slightly) more pragmatic approach is the prime origin of the term "open source".

      You can open up your sources to everyone on the planet and forbid that they are compiled at all.

      Actually, that wouldn't meet the open source definition. The very first sentence says "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Looks like it's you who could use a clue.

      What have you contributed to the community?

    11. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That's a good argument, but not a good one for *only* giving them free software. What about the idea of giving them the best tool for the job?

      What will be the best tool for the job in 5 years? In 20 years? Will Sun still be developing Java for Linux in that amount of time? If so, will it be compatible with these $100 laptops (which will probably not be replaced until the equipment wears out completely)?

      Free software is the best tool for the job when your job has very long-term goals, and Negroponte knows it.

      --
      http://outcampaign.org/
    12. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by Frederico+Camara · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The best tool to do the job, ok. But which job? Not the best job if you ask me. It's like saying that they should have the best broom to do the job. They would not make brooms, they would use them. That's the opposite of the idea behind the $100 computer.

      The IT market is very well divided. A small group of people control the production means and a large amount of people are consumers. Copyright laws and Acts tend to dificult the entrance of people from the larger group to the smaller group. FLOSS tend to even the ground.

      The problem here is that people generally are ok with the view that third world country should serve, because people from developed countries are servants too. They should have the best tools. But thinking of third world country people making tools is invasive, so have them use the tools for free instead. They will be happy. Forcing them to make the tools is "arbitrary, petty, and will ultimately hurt them".

    13. Re:That's kind of a cheap shot... by yuna49 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the comments in this thread so far have ignored the issue of software redistribution. The audience for the $100 laptop needs to be able to obtain and redistribute all its software freely. For instance, having a place (in a school, a Internet cafe, etc.) where you can connect this laptop and install anything it needs. That won't work unless all the software permits unlimited redistribution with no strings attached.

  2. not satisfied with what? by sfjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sun never said the new license was the final step. Contrarily, they said they are going to progress slowly:
    "No date has been set for open sourcing Java but Sun is anxious to get more developers involved in the JCP and using NetBeans to get their feedback."
    What's this bonehead complaining about?

    --
    It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
  3. Whose fault is it if it can't be used? by NSash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project, to bring affordable computing to children in developing nations. Negroponte wants only open source software on the machines, according to Red Hat, which is a member of the project."

    Well then that's Negroponte's problem, not Sun's. There's nothing in Sun's license that would prevent someone from bundling the JVM with whatever hardware you please.

  4. Sun is a Business... by ZSpade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not a Charity. I think it would be fantastic if they opened up for everyone. But they have to look out for ol' number one first, or there won't be any Sun at all. I'm sure they could make it work though, this just isn't their priority, and shouldn't have to be. Red hat may not be happy with it, but last time I checked, Redhat's glee doesn't fill Sun's coffers.

    --
    Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    1. Re:Sun is a Business... by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think it would be fantastic if they opened up for everyone. But they have to look out for ol' number one first, or there won't be any Sun at all.
      OK, so explain how making the binary available as a no-charge download contributes more money to their bottom line than releasing it as open source or free software would.
  5. Honesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay ... Redhat is a competitor to Sun. Redhat is supporting an alternative Java implementation. Doesn't that make it likely Redhat has a slanted viewpoint, and would be presenting a slanted viewpoint?

  6. I'm sorry, but how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Java technology is still free to download and develop against. Why exactly does it not being fully OSS prevent it from being on these laptops? It sounds to me like another example of OSS zealots taking their passions too far. You're going to prevent technology from being put in the hands of those in need, just because you don't agree with their license?

    1. Re:I'm sorry, but how? by bjarvis354 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously you haven't ever tried to install Java on GNU/Linux running on anything else that an x86. The real reason is that as long as Java license is so restritive as to only allow it to be distributed as binary only, it will suck using it on other archs...funny since it was promised as the solution...remember "write once, run anywhere"?

    2. Re:I'm sorry, but how? by kosmosik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because you've already sayed it - *still*. It is stil free for download. But it is *possible* to cease that - and that is why it is not compilant. Because you are dependent on one vendor. Point.

      Free or not - same like being pregnant - you are or you are not. Java is not (free).

  7. I seriously doubt by rbanffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I seriously doubt the current implementation of Java would fit inside a 400 MHz x86 computer that's designed more to be energy-efficient and small than to be fast.

    If Java is to run on the OLPC computer, it needs a smaller, simpler implementation. Sun provides all information neccessary to build one. It's up to Red Hat or any one other than them to make it.

    And, BTW, teaching Java to kids?! What do you want? To scare them away?

    --
    http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    1. Re:I seriously doubt by rpdillon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I read GP's post as saying that it was rarely less than 50% as fast as C, and often significantly faster [than 50% as fast as C].

      Which is to say, Java is typically somewhere between 50%-100% the speed of C. Specifically, this would mean it is typcially NOT as fast as C.

      Not sure what you were saying, but this seems to be a _very_ reasonable claim, and perhaps a bit conservative. You can certainly craft some scenarios where Java could be faster, and I expect Java to typically be faster than half the speed of C.

      Even in the java benchmark revisited, where the author is out to prove a point that Java is slow, Java performs fairly well (often better than 50% as fast as C using g++), and even sometimes being the fastest or in a dead heat with C (methcall and heapsort). This completely ignores that Java's performance will often be best in more complex applications, when it's own internal optimization can really pay off. Certainly, there are likewise instances where Java can be shown to be much slower than C as well.

      Anyway, I can see your point in general, but I think so all the "extravagant claims about Java peroformance posts" to respond to, you picked the wrong one.

  8. NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This license isn't even remotely "GNU/Linux friendly". It's neither "open source" nor "free software". It's "The Emperor's New License". Sun wants to have their cake and eat it too; they want the benefits of open source without actually opening the source.

    1. Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well if you actually RTFA, Red Hat wants to hack the JVM so that it supports real-time features. So in other words, they want their own Red Hat Realtime Java fork. Wtf up with that? Sun gives them a distributable Java and they say they also need to hack up their own version of it.

      It sounds like Red Hat has it's cake, now it wants to eat Sun's too. Me, I just want emerge not to bail when it gets to java.

    2. Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Eric+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Jeezus, people, get over this self-righteous trip about source code. As an SE, I appreciate having source code available, but will in general just run what works.
      That's EXACTLY why it would be better for it to be open source (or free software). Then we could actually hack together a working Java plugin for Linux on 64-bit Athlon64/Opteron platforms, since Sun is apparently unwilling to do so. That's just ONE example of how the current closed-source JDK is deficcient but could be fixed if it was open source.
    3. Re:NOT "GNU/Linux friendly" by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the only thing they needed was redistribution on the zealots' OSes, and this license gets them that.
      Actually it doesn't. It was put into Debian non-free without proper vetting of the license, and will likely be pulled out again. It's not going into Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Fedora.
      i don't want j. random opensource hacker submitting patches to sun.
      That's another red herring. Making Java truly open source doesn't make it any more or less difficult for people to submit bogus patches to Sun. As you point out, it already happens. If some of these have already made it into Java, that's Sun's fault for accepting them.

      On the other hand, making it open source will increase the pool of programmers who are willing to contribute to it, so the probability of there being some good contributions goes up.

  9. Why would you want java on there anyway? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, I know why, but it's going to run like shit. I'm not saying that Java programs are slow or anything, but running Java on top of your OS is just adding weight and complexity, and we're talking about systems with extremely minimal specifications anyway. The machines don't need to run every program out there and Java on the web (as transmitted to browsers) is likely losing importance what with the whole AJAX thing.

    Just the windows install for the latest JRE is 7.1 MB. That's the compressed package. It probably blows up to be twice that size. Java also has some noticable memory consumption overhead. Is it worth it on more capable systems? Sure. Is it worth it on this little toy computer? Hell no.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Money. by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Sun fully opensources Java like Redhat wants them to it will result in Sun losing millions per year in license fees from IBM and others. This will harm Sun, one of Redhat's major opponents.

  11. I've been sensing... by Null+Nihils · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a whole lot of "peer pressure" in all areas of the industry against Sun's Java technology. The current "you should open-source it" demand doesn't sound new to my ears, I'm pretty sure I've been hearing it for years.

    Although a platform in and of itself, Java is built on its own Object-Oriented language, and most people expect languages to be public-domain-ish, like C++, which is still a tremendously popular language despite its relative age and quirks.

    However, when it comes to C++, there is no "official" implementation outside of the basic STL and C libraries. Java, on the other hand, isn't just a language, it comes with a platform that ties in with what most developers expect to have available when they use the language.

    The dilemma is fairly obvious. If Sun tries to monopolize Java, Java will likely become marginalized (especially since it now competes on some levels with .NET) However, if Sun makes Java freer, Sun runs the risk of marginalizing themselves as a vendor.

    In the meantime, others in the market (and other markets) will continue to apply pressure to get better access to the Java language/platform, simply because in terms of languages and platforms, openness is advantageous for everyone developing with it (unless you're talking to MS.)

  12. Sun still afraid by bobs666 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In the previous article article Sun was asking for help "... how to best ... prevent forking and fragmentation".

    It seems They are afraid some one will provide better support for java then Sun. Perhaps the worst possibility is that Micro$oft will provide that support. :p

  13. Re:Negroponte's project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'd like to point out that Negroponte's project is... Negroponte's project!

    Key word being "Negroponte". In all probability, no starving kid is ever going to get a crank-powered laptop, but Negroponte is getting tons of self-promotion.

  14. Let's not be too hard on SUN... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sun got burned pretty bad by Microsoft when Billy boy and his corporate thugs decided to use their monopoly OS to hijack Java. I don't blame SUN for moving slowly with license changes. It was only their license that stopped Microsoft.

    As far as Java being Open Source, hasn't Java source code been available for years? Are we talking open source or GPL'd?

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  15. man... by sentientbrendan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What next, are they going to refuse to include the linux *kernel* because it doesn't use the latest version of the GNU license? Maybe they will throw in some crappy hurd kernel, then make their users go compile the linux kernel themselves if they want that... Then they can complain about how much linus is hurting open source software by not using the license they want.

    Where do they get off demanding that sun or any company release its software under any particular license? Sun is *already* giving away their software for free. Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to sell software that it didn't even write in the first place. The people that are acting to *prevent* anyone from getting access to java are the linux distro makers who refuse to put java in.

    This is nothing but an inconvenience for users. Who seriously does not go ahead and install sun java anyway? Who is not inconvenienced by the fact that most distros refuse to integrate it into their package management scheme?

    There's literally no reason that red hat, ubuntu and others couldn't package sun java. They only do it out of a desire to strongarm sun into using a different license which will not provide any benefit to their user base. If I was a shareholder, I would punish them severely for this nonsense, as it doesn't serve any kind of business end that I can see, and is more reminiscent of the behavior of the FSF than a for profit company. Someone needs to remind them that they are obligated to pursue the ends of their users and their shareholders before anything else.

  16. Re:Leave Java Alone! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What else do you want?
    I want a working Java browser plugin for x86-64 Linux systems.
    One of the things I absolutely love about Java is that there is One Java. One JVM (that anyone really needs). I don't have to deal with many different JVM's with different problems.
    You'd be surprised at how many people use IBM JRE in enterprise rather than Sun's one, for example. And IIRC there were other major players, too. Sun never tried to restrict the ability of other companies to make compliant Java implementations, quite the opposite. Nor will keeping the source closed help - sooner or later, either CGJ/Classpath or Harmony will get to the point where they will be comparable with the latest Sun implementation.
  17. Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me by notaprguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    BEGIN RANT. I'm not the biggest fan of Sun or Java. Java has become, to borrow Scott McNealy's famous description of Windows, a giant hairball. But for Redhat to get on their high horse and complain that Sun has yet to offer Java under an open source license stinks. What has Redhat ever innovated? They take software developed by the open source community, add some tweaks, and sell it for good money. Sun invented Java, spent large amount of money developing it and they can and should do whatever the hell they want with it. If they decide to license the sourcecode freely, great. If they don't, that's their business. Redhat should stick to their knitting...which is leaching off of others innovations. END RANT But seriously, I rarely if ever flame on Slashdot but these guys are rediculous. I promise to be more politic next time.

    1. Re:Red hat can...what's the word?...blow me by vga_init · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They take software developed by the open source community, add some tweaks, and sell it for good money.

      It's tempting to think like that. Actually, Red Hat subsidizes a very large amount of open source development, including kernel developers and other folks that do good work on some of the most essential parts of GNU/Linux. They make great contributions to the community--they are the community.

  18. Redhat in a Nutshell by joeytsai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you consider RedHat and their recent acquisition of JBoss, their response to Sun is quite understandable. After all, previous versions of Java were even less free than they are now and I don't remember RedHat saying anything. Why do they say something now?

    Before, the status quo was actually more palatable to RedHat - no free Linux distribution could legally distribute Sun's JDK/JRE and everyone complained. This also meant that there was a lot of interest in creating a free software Java solution - gcj, harmony, classpath, etc - something that RedHat has invested a lot in. Plus, RedHat could still support Sun's Java through RHEL.

    Also, everything that JBoss has created is all open source, but all of it requires Sun's Java. I seriously doubt any of JBoss' major clients runs any part of JBoss on gcj. I think RedHat's next move was to start migrating JBoss' components so they could run on gcj as well, further providing momentum to the free software Java solution as well as moving the largest open source Java company (and its highly deployed Java Application Server) towards a non-Sun Java.

    Now the circumstances are a bit different. I think Sun is hoping (and RedHat is dreading) that Java is now "free enough" - without being free software. Now all the distributions can legally provide Sun's JDK/JRE - even Debian, which is more or less the standard (though it is in the non-free section), and consequently Ubuntu, which is now the crowd favorite. Since perhaps the biggest complaint about Sun's Java has now been diffused, there's likely to be a shift in attitude towards free software Java. Why bother? But this is exactly the situation that RedHat doesn't want to be in. I really doubt they want to support gcj while essentially still endorsing Sun's Java through JBoss.

    Obviously, this is all my speculation, so I could totally wrong. But it makes sense to me.

    --
    http://www.talknerdy.org