Java to be Open Sourced in October

thePowerOfGrayskull writes "Sun is now stating that the Hotspot JVM and javac will be open-sourced in October of this year, with the rest to follow by the end of 2007. There is still no word as to which license it will be released under. For those who haven't seen it yet, Sun has previously opened a public developer community site for soliciting feedback and providing updates about the process."

Comments

eh?

[slummy]

"Source code for Java already is available and has been for 10 years", said James Gosling. I guess Open Source means they want free developers.

Re:eh?

[squiggleslash]

It's part of the easing of license restrictions that currently make it difficult to incorporate Java in certain types of Free Software project, and that cause hassle for companies like RedHat and Novell/SUSE who sincerely want to distribute Java but more than that want their operating systems to be 100% Free Software.

It's funny. The prime difference between Open Source and Free Software is that OSS is married to a community based development model whereas Free Software is just the basic principle of it being Free. Everyone keeps using "Open Source" here, but Sun has, actually, been following the community based development model part of Open Source for years without making Java Free Software. If it's not Free Software, it's not Open Source, but Java's certainly proven you can have the advantages of Open Source without actually making your software open source.

So why are they doing this? Well, like I said in my first paragraph, the current license and environment is too restrictive for many significant potential adopters. They're finally recognising people want the freedom, not just an open development model.

Big deal for OSS

[andrewman327]

Depending on the license that they choose, OSS purists can now utilize Java in their programs. OpenOffice.org ran into some issues when it began using Java to power some of its components. Hopefully the license under which this is released will be acceptable.

Re:Big deal for OSS

[nuzak]

Yeah, look what happened to perl and python thanks to their open license. Incompatible bytecode everywhere.

Why is it only Java is so fragile that it can't withstand openness?

Okay, but what does "open source" mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this "open source" as in "open source"?

Is this "open source" as in Apple's "public source" Darwin project, where they're basically going "you can see and compile all the code, but no way are you going to be redistributing this as any kind of commercial project"?

Is this "open source" as in Microsoft's "shared source" projects, where it's totally not open source at all except in a PR sense?

Is this "open source" as in Sun's Solaris "open sourcing", where it's open source in all technical senses, but it's under an unbelievably elaborate license which exists for no reason except to engender GPL incompatibility and keep Linux from benefiting from the source release, which effectively scares everyone away from the project?

Cuz really, unless "Java to be Open Sourced" really means "Java to be Open Sourced", it won't make a difference, acceptance of Java will continue to be held back by the perceived closedness of the Java language and real linux-unfriendliness of the Java runtime, and languages like C#/Mono will continue to make inroads until Apache finishes their Harmony project.

Re:Good

[cryfreedomlove]

Do you have any data that shows that Mono deployment in the enterprise is increasing, relative to java deployment? Because, in my experience of 8 years of enterprise java, Mono is not making any strides. It's a backwater that a few people are toiling in.

Re:Does it still matter?

[John Courtland]

Apache seems to be banking pretty hard on it.

Re:So all the juicy bits are to be left for later

[Jason Earl]

Exactly. Free Software has plenty of JVMs and compilers. Heck, the Free Software world has too many JVMs and compilers. What's needed are Java compatible class libraries under a license that is both amenable to proprietary and Free Software developers.

At this point Sun is simply trying to draw support away from the various Free Java implementations. Sun knows that if the Free Software implementations ever become popular that its chances of controling Java long term are essentially flushed down the toilet. Sun reacted too late with Solaris, and it is desperate to keep Java from suffering a similar fate. So it is doing everything in its power to keep people away from Free Software Java-alike systems.

If Sun were serious it would A) concentrate on releasing the Java class libraries, and B) it would have given Java developers some guidance on the license that it will be using. Everything else is just fluff.

Re:This is what I don't understand about Sun...

[jeswin]

If they had done this right 5 years ago, .NET would have been stillborn and Sun would be the worlds leading application platform vendor.

There is a truth in what you are saying. The real problem with Java is the lack of pace, and the locked Java Community process, which locks the platform and language. Also, since Sun was keen to hold on to the Enterprise space, the platform became too focused on Enterprise applications, while the language was stagnating. It took C#, Python and Ruby to finally get some new language additions.

Had it been Open Source, a lot more (free)wisdom would have gone into the core language.

Re:Big deal for OSS QWZX

[VGR]

I know, I shouldn't feed a troll....

You are the reason they were reluctant to make it (fully) open source.

You obviously are confident you know more about what makes a good language than the designers of Java do. Have you read even one paper at jcp.org? Have you looked at the people who make up the JCP? IBM, Apple, Cisco, Intel, HP, ATI, NVidia, Creative Labs, Google (!), Apache, Apogee, Namco ... you really think you're smarter than their combined intellect and months of discussion? Trust me, you're not.

I'm sure you and a lot of others are already giddy with excitement over the idea of making a "better Java" with const and operator overloading.

When you understand the "less is more" principle, you'll begin to understand why all your pet features don't belong in the language.

Re:Better and smaller class libraries

[955301]

Drop RMI? You realize that communication to EJB's is RMI right?

And for the love of gods, why bother trimming the libraries? If you don't use the classes, they don't get loaded into the VM. Everything else is inflating including the OSes and you want to trim the programmers libraries?

The more I look at your post, the more I realize you are straddling two fences. You say drop Swing and AWT implying that you are on the server in which case, your not downloading the JVM & libraries to the client anyway. Then you say Java needs to be like a Java Web Start install, meaning you are on the client side and therefore need the libraries you just said to toss! Oh and btw, Java Web Start is part of the jre download - if you have to download and install something to the client, why not download it all at once? Besides, the libraries *are* broken up - j2se and j2ee, correct?

Re:Big deal for OSS QWZX

[Reverend528]

Have you looked at the people who make up the JCP? IBM, Apple, Cisco, Intel, HP, ATI, NVidia, Creative Labs, Google (!), Apache, Apogee, Namco ... you really think you're smarter than their combined intellect and months of discussion?

Yeah. The individual usually is smarter than the group.

Re:Big deal for OSS QWZX

[Just Some Guy]

you really think you're smarter than their combined intellect and months of discussion? Trust me, you're not.

Unless you're posting that from an AT&T Unix console, you're benefitting from people who had the hubris to think you're wrong.

The road of progress was paved by people who thought the current way of doing things was dumb, and who set out to find a better alternative. This is generally regarded as a good thing (except by people with a vested interest in the old ways).