Slashdot Mirror
Jini and the Sun Community Source License (SCSL)
Julien Flack writes "JavaWorld has an interesting article on the Jini
Community and its approach to open source.
The Sun Community Source License (SCSL) "is an
amalgam of open source principles and for-profit
licensing models of the past." according to this
article, which claims SCSL is in the spirit of
ESR' Bazaar. "
You talk about "Sun's poisoned candy", as though poisoned candy were somehow inherently immoral. That's not true. The GPL is poison candy that is clearly moral.
here
What ESR says doesn't matter. What does RMS feel about it?
5 or 6 years ago, when Sun was beating the Open Systems drum very loudly, their big point was that anyone could implement the open standard. The way they would succeed and make money is by making the best implementation. I guess they feel that they can no longer compete as a software development company.
If their goal is to knock Microsoft off their pedestal and make a more level playing field, they should use Java & Jini as a sword and not a collection plate. They should remove the licensing restrictions, make it open source, and then concentrate on making the best implementation. If they are successful in levelling the playing field, they will realize the financial benefits by having a wider target market.
Unfortunately, this requires long-term thinking (and the ability to make a decent GUI).
Some people say the Mozilla effort has
failed for various reasons, including the
Netscape-takes-all licensing, 'too many rules',
or just because it was a huge dump of bloated
non-working code, and because it was too complex
there are no outside contributors.
I wonder how Sun's effort would fare?
Stallman said OSS creates these exact kind of problems. Free software exist well without businesses like Sun.
Linux growth was due to free software. But, the term is not favorable to the businesses. They want to tap the benefits as seen from Linux and give nothing back to community. They also want to lured people back to their propriety ways.
Free "liberty" software is much more of clear and direct term than open source. Given with Open Source, Linux will spread more quicker. But, we are selling out to these businesses. They call their software open source yet it doesn't conform to the principles of free software.
OSI, ISO, ESR, RMS, OSS I like TLA's.
When will the OSI, OSS and SPI get their sh*t together and stop telling us what to do.
It's the FSF's annointed position to tell you what to do. Or so they seem to act.
Do I have to accept the GPL to write a Linux app? No.
Yet to join the "Jini Community", I have to accept the SCSL. Why?
The distortions are interesting. You suggest Sun doesn't get it, yet. Well, perhaps they think they do.
Sun has indeed learned from Linux. It knows there is a large group of really good programmers out there that will do great work for free. What is million dollar, Open Source, question (literally)? How to get them to do that for us.
Sun can fork the SCSL either way, it can go away or it can go propriatary. Given the Marketing (distortions), I'd submit they rather want to go the propriatary route.
This is a fine project for the "GPL is a virus" camp to join and contribute to. At least the SCSL is pretty clear on a key point, you're working for Sun.
In the end, this SCSL thing is a wonderful demonstration of why some people just don't do non-GPL code. It makes the line between "Open Souce" and "Free Software" unavoidably clear.
There are two camps, those that make a living taking IP, and those that make a living using it. IP takers make money by leveraging my effort with little added value, while users leverage my effort to create wonderful new things.
3. When you GPL code you don't convey title or unrestricted rights to the FSF. So, what could you fear fear from a future version of the GPL? Well, maybe more protection for those of us that happen to like the GPL.
4. Some projects, such as Linux, have so many contributors that it would be nearly impossible for it to fall under anything other than GPL v2.
They really are communitites founded on different principles - Sun and its community want to make money. Anything they can't make money from they share.
The Linux community is founded on getting what they need to done, then sharing it.
what RMS has to say matters less. How do people for whom it is geared feel about it?
Hmm, I remember when PenWindows was the Next Big Thing (back in '91-'92). There were a lot of paying developers showing up at Microsoft's conferences. Does this mean PenWindows has been hugely successful?
The few restrictions imposed by the GPL are there by design, and *very important*. They prevent proprietary software publishers from using our hard work against us. The authors can always grant extra rights at need, but revoking rights that are being abused is much harder.
Many vendors pretend to be interested in interoperability but actually aren't. WORA is doomed if arbitrary subsets may be implemented.
Isn't Java already the fastest-growing programming language around these days? How much further ahead could it really be, anyway?
If you follow ESR's Open Source principles and purely economic arguments, licenses like this seem to have all the benefits of Open Source, and none of the disadvantages. That's where Richard Stallman's free software movement comes in. It does argue based on surface arguments of eceonomics. It argues based on principles of freedom, openness, and to large extent, on what users want. Licenses like this clearly do not hold up with Richard's arguments. ESR has been an incredibly effective Open Source advocate. As such, most of the newcomers into the movement (including Sun) only understand Open Source, and not free software.
Partially for that reason, Richard (and most of the other original free software programmers and advocates) don't like Open Source, but prefer free software.
I remember one of my teachers doing a demonstration in which he had a vase with a ball inside it. If you tried to get the ball out by just sticking your hand in the vase and grabbing the ball, you can't pull your hand back out of the vase. The only way to get the ball out was to turn the vase upside-down and let the ball drop out. The moral of the demonstration was that to get what you want, sometimes you have to let go.
Sun has tried to maintain too much control over Java, and the result has stunted its potential. Java was supposed to be write-once-run-anywhere, but by trying to keep their implementation proprietary, they discouraged Java from proliferating. If Sun had made their implementation free, source and all, it would have encouraged distribution, so that Java could indeed run anywhere, and discouraged alternative implementations--why bother making another implementation if one is readily available?
If Sun gave Java away, they could have probably made a nice amount of money off Java apps. But they didn't, and Java is still kind of in its little corner.
Looks to me like Sun is trying to limit who is in their "community" and can receive code. This violates one of the Open Source principles.
Besides, I think sun is niave if it thinks it can build a community like Linux has got. The Linux community built up around almost no rules (other than the GPL). The SCSL's redistribution limitations and compatibility requirements will be a serious hinderance.
Chris
--
3rd Annual Atlanta Linux Showcase
-- www.primeharbor.com
If you are Bill G., do you know how to buy Linux? Buy RMS!
Interestingly, the very trait so many find irritating in RMS is the one that will make sure that doesn't happen. Some call him fanatic, I call him singularly determined.
>The very first thing I noticed is that it's much,
>much more difficult for a layman to read and >understand than the GNU GPL is.
Believe me, the GPL isn't easy for lawyers, either. For that matter, I'm not yet convinced (as a laywer) that it does what it thinks it does, or says it does, or that it is claimed it does; I'm not sure how much these intersect, either.
>Now, everyone reading Slashdot knows how much
>controversy, confusion and debate the GPL has >spawned -- imagine how much worse it would be if
>the GPL had been written in this incomprehensible >style.
Had the GPL been written in standard legalese, we wouldn't have these problems . . .
hawk, esq.
Funny that - 21,000 paying developers at this year's JavaOne expo. Quite a cold reception.
What's the problem with session ID's, again?
Since you (or your predecessors) are the people who built the internet, you do realize that they can track you WITHOUT those, through webserver logs.
That would logically mean that there probably was another reason for it. I mean, you're not one to give into silly conspiracy theories, are you?
Oh wait, you forgot also that *SUN* helped build the internet - that Bill Joy pushed the use of TCP/IP commercially in the early 80's and actually WROTE the first UNIX-os that included a TCP/IP stack. Pity.
These grandiose statements that "Sun is faling with Java among the 31337 programmer community" never cease to make me smile.
The open source community's opinion does not reflect world opinion. I also question that the open source community is "technologically savvy" from a programming perspective. Talent is a rare thing in general, and while OSS is lucky to have several very talented programmers (Linus, Alan, Alfredo, etc.), it seems that those people aren't the type to blow-pipe over "Why XXX sucks", whereas the people who couldn't code themselves out of a box troll Slashdot with their ignorant drivel.
Java is an over-hyped technology that doesn't provide any advancement in the art of programming. It is, however a valiant attempt at doing "objects over again", to make up where C++ and Smalltalk failed. [Not that these languages are failures, but in 1999, C++ is a technological mess, and Smalltalk is a business mess.]
-Stu
You missed two important facts:
1. There is always the choice of using the old license, so a new GPL can only remove restrictions on the old code, never create more restrictions.
2. The FSF sends a contract to everyone who donates code, which guareentees that the code will remain free. The contract is almost as detailed about this as the GPL, and leave _very_ little room for changes.
1. I consider it less problematic that GPL'ed software might lose some restrictions than if it gained them.
2. As I wrote, the contract is quote detailed and leave very little room for change. Unfortunately, I only have paper copies of the contract. Maybe someone else can refer to an online copy.
They haven't outright and clear said so yet, but there are very strong hints that they plan to make most, and perhaps eventually, all of their software "community source".
At the JavaOne developer conference recently, this is what Bill Joy said:
Next there's this idea for the Java platform. We tried to create a community and protect it from a predatory company that we were aware of that was likely to try to attack us with contract law, and discovered that contracts sometimes aren't enough to protect us because not everyone thinks they apply to them.
So what we've decided to do going forward is to try to work from a notion of community. You've seen the Java Community Process (JCP). The JCP allows stakeholders in the different areas, like the people who care about realtime to define the realtime stuff, and that's a really good thing.
More recently we've done Community Source, which is an attempt to blend the best things about open source and proprietary models together with the added benefit from open source that when you take a Community Source license, you're allowed to make proprietary enhancements to it. We still insist that you leave the APIs open, but you can take large chunks of commercial money and make commercial investments. This works for companies.
The open source model works for other communities, and for them it's great. But we wanted to come up with a model that would work for traditional companies as well, so that we could quickly move into Community Source as much of our intellectual property as possible, and hopefully all of it going forward. But we insist also that people remain compatible.
So Community Source has an additional right and an additional responsibility relative to open source. We've done this with a lot of our technology already, including picoJava, and Java and Jini technologies. We'll be doing it with more.
I think they way they're going with Jini is pretty good. They could do better for Java though. They're being kinda closed about what they're going to open though, and have only dropped hints and not made definite statements on their website.
However, some things they have hinted/said are: they will open up Solaris later this year. Also, on one of their Solaris pages they say they'll be making a new version of Solaris (presumably Solaris 8) available under their "easy access" (ie beta) program - they've never done that before. They also seem to be working on making their C/C++ development software and compilers available, and to Linux users as well - to help develop code that works on Linux and Solaris more easily. They've also made other things not mentioned in that article available under their "community source".
They do seem pretty serious about it.
Although many slashdot readers are patriots of the GNU Public License, I believe SCSL is good. It protects Sun's investment, but it also lets developers have their way. It isn't quite in the fashion of Eric Raymond's view of open source, but it is very good nonetheless.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
FROM GPL v2:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
So GPL v3+ could be something similar to SCSL or worse. Point is GPL v3+ can be anything! You, as author, have no control over it. Sure, you can release a new version of your software under another licence. There is no termination in GPL, therefore people can chose to use GPL v3+ on the existing version of your software even if you object to its terms!
If you are Bill G., do you know how to buy Linux? Buy RMS!
Now, another Sun staffer claims Open-Source-like attributes when the SCSL is clearly not Open Source. More distortion.
Does it seem that Sun is grasping at straws here? IBM has released a license for its Java compiler that is compliant with the Open Source Definition. A Java VM is available under the GPL from Transvirtual. Other Java components under bona-fide free software licenses are in process. You don't have to go to Sun for Java any longer.
The most laughable part is that they feel the SCSL is necessary for real companies, and that those companies would not participate in Open Source. Yet, IBM, Apple, and many others belie that claim.
I think Sun has learned some valuable lessons from the Linux development. They just haven't been able to accept them yet. When they do, the SCSL will go away.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
The article got this a bit wrong. Sun is willing to help shepard some important efforts. We don't require sheparding -- if you want to work on your own, feel free. In fact we usually turn down sheperding requests because we don't have very many engineers to do the work and most efforts aren't critical enough to the overall success of Jini technology. (It isn't that they aren't important, we just can't help everyone who asks.)
- The SCSL is an amalgam of open source principles and for-profit licensing models of the past. It has been crafted in the spirit of openness avowed in Eric Raymond's now-famous article, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"
ESR says :- 9.6 Free the Software, Sell the Brand This is a speculative business model. You open-source a software technology, retain a test suite or set of compatibility criteria, then sell users a brand certifying that their implementation of the technology is compatible with all others wearing the brand. (This is how Sun Microsystems ought to be handling Java and Jini.)
Bill says it is open, ESR says it is not. So who is right?The JINI FAQ says:
- 28. Can code under the GNU Public License (GPL) be incorporated into the Jini technology code base?
I guess the answer is clear.No. Under the terms of the GPL you may not provide Products under a license that may contain more restrictive terms
DWR is Ajax for Java
The license compels you to make your software free and open source. Any modifications that are made to the software must be published if it is to be used for profit. It is very GPLish in the way that it forces openess to people who use the software.
#=-weo-=#
I think the SCSL is a very interesting license, not an unreasonable thing for Sun to do. Make no mistake, Sun isn't doing this out of altruism. They need Java products such as Jini to be used by everyone, so they have to make them somewhat open. At the same way, Sun needs to retain control of the platform in order to guarantee themselves ownership and eventual revenue. The SCSL is an interesting way for Sun to walk this line while also getting some of the benefits of a community developing the source code to something.
Unfortunately, the Jini Community Process as they are running it isn't quite open enough for me. In particular, the requirements for joining the "Jini community" add friction to the process. You can't just have an open mailing list where people exchange ideas and code, you have to work behind a passworded web site. It may seem like a small thing, but it's kept me from participating.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computi ng/9907/15/jini.idg/
--
Brent J. Nordquist N0BJN
Don't be too hard on Sun. Without Sun, there wouldn't be Java, which has LOTS of really nice features (as well as a few bone-headed ones).
And without Java, Kaffe and gj2c (or whatever Cygnus ends up calling their project) wouldn't exist.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So, like, I figured I should read this license to figure out what's up. I looked around a bit and eventually found it.
The very first thing I noticed is that it's much, much more difficult for a layman to read and understand than the GNU GPL is. Now, everyone reading Slashdot knows how much controversy, confusion and debate the GPL has spawned -- imagine how much worse it would be if the GPL had been written in this incomprehensible style. The SCSL has no preamble which explains the intent of the license; and in order to make any sense of the text of the license, one must continually refer to the license's Glossary to figure out what is meant by all of the Capitalized Words. The SCSL is actually three or more separate licenses all concatenated together, and you have to read a meta-license to determine which of the sublicene(s) apply to you.
So, while I didn't bother reading all of the license, I got the following out of it:
The software is only free (in the Debian Free Software Guidelines sense) for Research Use. You can't use the software freely if you actually have a job. (The Internal Deployment Use sub-license isn't free, either.)
For any other use (including commercial use), there are unacceptable limitations. You can't distribute modifications, and you can't disassemble or reverse engineer executables.
The last thing I noticed, after I quit reading the license in disgust, was that there was a "session ID" appended to the URL. It seems that Sun wanted to track me as I browsed their site. Naughty Sun! (The actual URL that I got for the license when I finally got to it was http://www.sun.com/jini/licensing/scsl_jcp_v.1.6c_ web.html;$sessionid$E5HGUBAAAV2LDAMU VFZE3NQ -- but I snipped the "session ID" garbage from the end before adding the license link in the first paragraph.
Does Sun really think that programmers are so bone-headed that we won't see right through all of their little tricks? We (or our predecessors) are the people who built the Internet! We aren't stupid, and we notice details. Your lawyers can't bury us with avalanches of mumbo-jumbo, because we programmers will eventually pick our way through the maze and find the rotten trash you dropped at the exit.
By playing these petty little power games with us, Sun only continues to alienate us. This is why Java has met with such a cold reception among the technologically savvy user and programmer community -- Sun doesn't want to play by the rules.
Well, just remember that the ultimate power is ours, not theirs. We have the power to disregard Sun's offerings until they come up with a way to work with us instead of against us. Sun isn't offering anything we need -- they're trying to grow a market. We've already got the tools and the talent to go our own direction, without Sun's poisoned candy. So while Sun keeps shooting itself in the foot and feeding fluff to the "HTML coders", we can go on with our lives.
I haven't read the license in detail myself (just skimmed it), but Sun's new license may have some legal ramifications for other companies that agree to work under its terms. I know that my company's lawyers have recommended that NO ONE within my company accept the conditions of the license, lest it affect our ability to protect our own intellectual property.
Can anyone clarify this potential? Is this a valid concern, or just another case of corporate misunderstanding the spirit of open-source?
> Jini development team at Sun, acting as "shepherds" for new projects and working groups
:-{.
A rather interesting attitude towards future developers, so long as you stay within the nice little fenced-in commercially viable paddock available, you won't get eaten by those nasty wolves (or penguins) that are out there to steal
your code and ideas
Does controlled chaos really work? Can they motivate week-end hobbyists to become mercenary developers, much less cynical ISVs? What are the motivating factors to encourage individuals to excel? All the greedy capitalists are forming startups, all the zealots are gnuing away, and the erratic geniuses are beavering away on the glory of Linux. Who's left to grab developer's mindshare from?
Given the complexity of software systems nowadays, I suspect the limiting factorfor growth is the learning curve and ease of development. It will be interesting in the medium term to see how well Java/Jini ranks against Windows and Linux as the developer's playground.
LL
Yeah, but they'll never get the SCSL certified by OSI as an Open Source license unless they give people the essential right to distribute modifications.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
So if Sun's stuff is Open Source, how come it's not OSI Certified(tm) Open Source?? The answer is that it's not Open Source and it's not free(libre) software. Explain to me again how this is ESR's fault?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
RMS mostly complains about Open Source because the name lacks the magical word "free". I complain about "free" software because there are three meanings of "free": freely-copyable, zero-cost, and junk. RMS overestimates the value of "free", particularly in these here United States, where "free" (meaning liberty) is a four-letter word.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist