Slashdot Mirror
Sun To Choose GPL For Open-Sourcing Java
An anonymous reader writes, "Sun is about to announce its plans for open-sourcing Java SE and ME, according to CRN — and they're going to use the GPL, not their own CDDL or another less-restrictive license."
Another thing Microsoft can't own.
Most of the stuff on
Is it just me, or has every article now been treated to the "itsatrap" tag? Getting annoying, and it's a flagrant abuse of the tagging system. Come on people, this isn't digg.
No, wait, it's Slashdot!
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
For those who have already started complaining about the license in this thread - why don't you spend a few years writing your own Java clone, and giving it away under BSD or whatever?
It only affects people who would use the Java source code itself. Does not affect people who develop applications in Java or people who use Java applications. So...a prime example of someone who would be affected would be Microsoft. They have their Java implementation in .NET. If they were to replace their implementation with Sun's, by hooking into the actual source code, they would also be bound by the GPL.
I really think this is a good use of the GPL. Something as high profile as Java would be a huge target for "embrace and extend", and this protects
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
Next fight: which version?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
OK, first remark - I want to see this as an official press release on Sun's website, with a link to the code. Then I'll be confident it will really happen.
Second remark - I think the GPL is a good choice for this. Consider what Sun might gain from open source Java under any license:
1) Excellent integration with Linux, *BSD, and any other platform out there they haven't integrated into fully yet (except maybe Windows). They would get all the work done for free, too - distributions would be chomping at the bit to work long and hard on making everything work Just So.
2) Much better realization of cross platform "write once, run everywhere" goals. Well integrated Java everywhere can only help this.
3) Possible improvements as people get a chance to fix anything that's been annoying them for the last several years.
All very logical reasons to open source, IMHO - Java is already freely downloadable. Sun owns the Java trademark, so they have no fear of forks which mean anything in terms of threatening Java mind share - Java has to be one of the most publicly recognizable programming language brand names in the world. Sun will always provide the "only" Java, whatever else out there might run Java programs.
Now, what does GPL do for them, that other licenses might not?
1) Credibility - rather than inventing Yet Another License, making things simple using already established (and I think functional for this purpose) licenses.
2) Prevents commercial forking. Whatever open source Java becomes, it is unlikely that someone would try and compete commercially against Sun when Sun has the commercial code base and original developers. Any work any commercial developer did in competition (that they want to distribute anyway) would have to be offered free to the world under GPL, and even if Sun can't use it directly the ideas alone would be enough to allow them to keep up and maybe get there first in some cases.
3) Allows maximal code sharing in the open world. GPL has its own momentum, as a sort of "logical end point" - free except for the ability to become non-free. That would seem to make a lot of sense to me for Java, particularly since I would expect (like OpenOffice) that most of the best code would come out of Sun and be copyright Sun. Sun can put out what it wants, and still license commercially if they so choose.
Downsides for Sun primarily seem to be the "radical" image associated with GPL in some circles (yes that's a disadvantage if you want to look like a reasonable, sane business to some PHBs) and the inability to combine developments based on GPL Java back into their commercial Java without discussing it with the author. But since this very restriction is also a reassurance to the community in some ways, it might not be all bad.
Anyway, I will watch developments with interest and look forward hopefully to the day when Java on Gentoo can be well integrated and smooth.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Well,
It also affects all the regular users of ready-made distributions who only package and distribute GPL software.
The funny thing to me is that almost every large scale Java desktop app I have used is slow and a memory hog, yet J2ME apps run well on slow mobile chips with limited memory. Obviously it's not the Java language itself that creates the bloat but rather the mindset around Java desktop apps.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
"EVERYTHING you can do with GPL'd code, you can do with BSD'd code."
It lacks the assurance that your software will remain Free and open source to anyone who uses it. This is something you can do with GPL'd code that you cannot with BSD'd code; make a legal guarantee about the freedom of the software.
Which is more free?
1) that which ensures freedom or
2) that which grants so much freedom that it permits denial of freedom
You make the argument that the answer is obvious, but if you pause to think rather than simply mashing the "reply" button, you may find that it is actually a question worthy of some consideration. I'm not saying I know the answer, but the answer has far reaching ramifications many arenas (abortion, wars, government, software, etc.)