bruce.armstrong wrote: Somebody just said it better than I did, and with more chops to say it:
Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg & Facebook Mobile
In many cases, the end of the year gives you time to step back and take stock of the last 12 months. This is when many of us take a hard look at what worked and what did not, complete performance reviews, and formulate plans for the coming year. For me, it is all of those things plus a time when I u...
Sun is set to introduce new licensing guidelines that are designed to make it easier for developers to use Java source code. Sun said that it does not intend to make Java available as an open source license. Rather, the new Java licensing rules are to be much simpler, according to Sun, encouraging developers to create commercial Java-based products.
The move is in response to ongoing competition from Microsoft and open-source development alternatives. "We're trying to simplify, as best we can, all the legalistics involving application development," said Sun Fellow Graham Hamilton.
Sun has over the years made changes to various Java licenses but this is the first initiative to overhaul its commercial Java license.
Sun is going to introduce a "Java Internal User License" (JIUL), aimed at its enterprise Java customers and a "Java Distributed License," which will take the place of the current commercial license for J2SE.
Jean Elliott, director of product marketing for Sun's Java 2 Standard Edition, told a reporter yesterday: " We'd like to see [the commercial license] be like the human tail and eventually go away, because we felt it was excessively complicated."
Sun's Matt Thompson - Director of Tech Outreach and Open Source Programs - last week said in a Technical Exchange panel discussion called "Empowering Software R&D with Open Communities" held in the Hyatt Regency Harbor Room at the EclipseCon 2005 conference:
"Right now, you can do pretty much anything you want with the Java source code for non-commercial purposes except fork it and call it Java. If you do that, we have a problem."
Which prompted JDJ's own Bill Dudney, speaking exclusively to JDJ News Desk, to say:
"I am ready to see closure on this issue. At JavaOne Sun was saying that they could see no benefit in making Java more open. I think they were wrong and I'm glad to hear that the forces to open Java are apparently pushing Sun towards that end."
Dudney continued:
"I also agree though that we don't need forked incompatible things called Java that are not, that would just serve to confuse the market. I hope to see an open Java with an open compliance suite, then we can be confident that we have the 'real thing' when using something called Java."
Now Sun's move to review its commercial license is certain to be examined with a fine-tooth comb by Java developers everywhere.
About Java News Desk JDJ News Desk monitors the world of Java to present IT professionals with updates on technology advances, business trends, new products and standards in the Java and i-technology space.
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
#12
provocateur commented on 17 Mar 2005
Surely an open source Java would open the door to an MS modified version of the JRE being bundled with (but not part of) Windows or IE?
#11
Dave Naylor commented on 17 Mar 2005
Sun will never open source Java. Why? Because with an open source JVM, the revenue for J2ME is gone. Instead of innovating with Java we have to put up with yet another license.
%%So, what do you think about when you think about Sun? Computers, networks, operating systems... and Java. There's the problem, because Java is boring. Java is the safe choice.%%
Sure it's boring. It works. Just works and works....
Anyone see Tim Bray's blog (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/03/15/OneSunYear) on March 15: "So, what do you think about when you think about Sun? Computers, networks, operating systems... and Java. There's the problem, because Java is boring. Java is the safe choice. Java is COBOL. You won't get fired for choosing Java. Banks use Java. Telephone companies use Java. CIOs like Java...it's not exciting. J2EE isn't either. EJBs aren't either. Generics and autoboxing and variable-length argument lists are good things, but theyre not exciting."
Sun's relationship with MS came about because of their Java efforts. They used their position as the "controllers" of Java to stop MS from bundling an incompatible version of Java (embrase and extend, as it were) with Windows, and got them to stop and give Sun a ton of money. Now I am no fan of Java anyway (I do mostly C), but had Java been truely open source, nobody would be able to stop MS from doing this.
#7
jeif1k commented on 17 Mar 2005
Sun's behavior towards open source (e.g., Schwartz's rantings, their fake patent grant, their Java efforts, their attempt to position Solaris against Linux, etc.) show that Sun is not an unequivocal supporter of free software or open source software.
#6
Propeetary vs Non-Proprietary commented on 17 Mar 2005
The lines seem to be drawing themselves out - on one side, we have Sun, Microsoft; on the other, it's IBM, Red Hat, Novell and the rest of the pro-Linux crowd.
And then there is HP, trying to do a dance right in the middle, but getting smacked by the fodder coming from both sides.
Whilst I can see the benefits of open sourcing java I just can't see how any open source organisation can take on something as big as Java especially the J2EE side of things with the compatibility suites used to certify J2EE compliance. Also, as a Java certified engineer, what will happen to any certification program?
IMHO - Open sourcing java is a nice idea in theory but not in practice.
There are three different open source attempts to write a Java setup. At least one of them happened for the sole reason that Sun's one is not open source so couldn't be included in Debian. So if it was open source from the start there would be at least one less fork.
The fact is refusing to open the language has not prevented it forking, it has encouraged more forking to happen. You could argue that the greater ease of forking from having the full setup available to start your fork would have led to more forking, but I doubt it because people dislike "unofficial" versions. Especially if they kept the trademark, I can't imagine any non-Sun forks gaining popularity unless they were at least 20% better than Sun's, in which case the benefit from those improvements probably outweighs the damage done by forking.
#3
Sun quote re 'forking' commented on 17 Mar 2005
"Sun has elected not to use an open-source license at this time because its commercial customers are concerned with 'forking,' or the creation of incompatible editions of the base Java software"
#2
an00n commented on 17 Mar 2005
Believe it or not: Java is Sun's next cash machine. Many people don't realize that Sun is beginning to cash-in big amounts of dollars from Java. That's because any Java-enabled Phone, PDA, Digital TV set-top-box, or gadget-du-jour means a royalty to them, up to $1/box. There are already several millions of these gizmos, and a lot more are to come in the next years with the advent of HDTV. Sun is even lobbying to put Java within DVD players (in order to replace the crappy system used to author interactive menus, that is).
Why on earth would they open-source something that looks like the next golden goose ? That would be pure business suicide.
Wake up people. It's all about the money ! Not about "forking" and other stupid claims made to distract the open-source zealots from the real issue.
#1
linguae commented on 17 Mar 2005
It would be great for all developers if Java were open sourced under an agreeable, OSI-compliant license. Developers of "unsupported" platforms would be able to port the JDK to their favorite operating systems (and redistribute sources and binaries of the JDK, too), which would raise the number of developers using Java, which in turn raises the number of people using Java-based applications. Next, I don't think Sun has to worry much about Java being forked. Look at C, C++, Python, Perl, and Ruby. C and C++ are ANSI-certified, and Perl, Python, and Ruby are open source. As far as I know, there aren't any forks of C, Perl, and the other languages that I've listed.
DaliborTopic wrote: ||| 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. |||
Nope. The JRL only allows research use - no distributions.
The JDL only allows distributing after passing the costly test suite - no (volunteer based) distributions.
The JIUL will only allow *internal* use - no distributions
Ranx wrote: 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
provocateur wrote: Surely an open source Java would open the door to an MS modified version of the JRE being bundled with (but not part of) Windows or IE?
Dave Naylor wrote: Sun will never open source Java. Why? Because with an open source JVM, the revenue for J2ME is gone. Instead of innovating with Java we have to put up with yet another license.
Java Just Works wrote: %%So, what do you think about when you think about Sun? Computers, networks, operating systems... and Java. There's the problem, because Java is boring. Java is the safe choice.%%
Sure it's boring. It works. Just works and works....
Read This wrote: Anyone see Tim Bray's blog (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/03/15/OneSunYear) on March 15: "So, what do you think about when you think about Sun? Computers, networks, operating systems... and Java. There's the problem, because Java is boring. Java is the safe choice. Java is COBOL. You won't get fired for choosing Java. Banks use Java. Telephone companies use Java. CIOs like Java...it's not exciting. J2EE isn't either. EJBs aren't either. Generics and autoboxing and variable-length argument lists are good things, but theyre not exciting."
finkployd wrote: Sun's relationship with MS came about because of their Java efforts. They used their position as the "controllers" of Java to stop MS from bundling an incompatible version of Java (embrase and extend, as it were) with Windows, and got them to stop and give Sun a ton of money. Now I am no fan of Java anyway (I do mostly C), but had Java been truely open source, nobody would be able to stop MS from doing this.
jeif1k wrote: Sun's behavior towards open source (e.g., Schwartz's rantings, their fake patent grant, their Java efforts, their attempt to position Solaris against Linux, etc.) show that Sun is not an unequivocal supporter of free software or open source software.
Propeetary vs Non-Proprietary wrote: The lines seem to be drawing themselves out - on one side, we have Sun, Microsoft; on the other, it's IBM, Red Hat, Novell and the rest of the pro-Linux crowd.
And then there is HP, trying to do a dance right in the middle, but getting smacked by the fodder coming from both sides.
Neale Napier wrote: Whilst I can see the benefits of open sourcing java I just can't see how any open source organisation can take on something as big as Java especially the J2EE side of things with the compatibility suites used to certify J2EE compliance. Also, as a Java certified engineer, what will happen to any certification program?
IMHO - Open sourcing java is a nice idea in theory but not in practice.
m50d wrote: There are three different open source attempts to write a Java setup. At least one of them happened for the sole reason that Sun's one is not open source so couldn't be included in Debian. So if it was open source from the start there would be at least one less fork.
The fact is refusing to open the language has not prevented it forking, it has encouraged more forking to happen. You could argue that the greater ease of forking from having the full setup available to start your fork would have led to more forking, but I doubt it because people dislike "unofficial" versions. Especially if they kept the trademark, I can't imagine any non-Sun forks gaining popularity unless they were at least 20% better than Sun's, in which case the benefit from those improvements probably outweighs the damage done by forking.
Sun quote re 'forking' wrote: "Sun has elected not to use an open-source license at this time because its commercial customers are concerned with 'forking,' or the creation of incompatible editions of the base Java software"
an00n wrote: Believe it or not: Java is Sun's next cash machine. Many people don't realize that Sun is beginning to cash-in big amounts of dollars from Java. That's because any Java-enabled Phone, PDA, Digital TV set-top-box, or gadget-du-jour means a royalty to them, up to $1/box. There are already several millions of these gizmos, and a lot more are to come in the next years with the advent of HDTV. Sun is even lobbying to put Java within DVD players (in order to replace the crappy system used to author interactive menus, that is).
Why on earth would they open-source something that looks like the next golden goose ? That would be pure business suicide.
Wake up people. It's all about the money ! Not about "forking" and other stupid claims made to distract the open-source zealots from the real issue.
linguae wrote: It would be great for all developers if Java were open sourced under an agreeable, OSI-compliant license. Developers of "unsupported" platforms would be able to port the JDK to their favorite operating systems (and redistribute sources and binaries of the JDK, too), which would raise the number of developers using Java, which in turn raises the number of people using Java-based applications. Next, I don't think Sun has to worry much about Java being forked. Look at C, C++, Python, Perl, and Ruby. C and C++ are ANSI-certified, and Perl, Python, and Ruby are open source. As far as I know, there aren't any forks of C, Perl, and the other languages that I've listed.
Private clouds solve many problems for enterprises and bring unique operational challenges along with them. There are dozens of companies of all sizes that will build you a private cloud and turn over the keys – then what? Trying to convert a traditional enterprise IT operations team t...
Like a moving company for the cloud, Racemi provides the ability to easily migrate Windows server images to public clouds. The company is a sponsor at the upcoming Cloud Expo where visitors can see Racemi demonstrate server migrations.
Racemi announced on Wednesday its DynaCenter soft...
As a Platinum Plus Sponsor of Cloud Expo New York, Oracle is offering special passes to SYS-CON's 10th International Cloud Expo, which will take place on June 11–14, 2012, at the Javits Center in New York City, New York.
With more than 380,000 customers – including 100 of the Fortune ...
SAP on Tuesday announced its intention to buy Ariba for $4.3 billion, a 19 percent premium on Ariba's market capitalization.
The move comes soon after SAP's SuccessFactors February buy and shows that SAP is quickly and aggressively acquiring its way to a full cloud business services c...
How do we connect clouds? Since the Internet has no SLA, many organizations are concerned about being exposed to the vagaries of the Internet. There are only a few options for concrete quality of service (QoS) when accessing public clouds.
In his session at the 10th International Clo...
Google said first thing Tuesday morning that it’s closed on its $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.
It’s been waiting nine months to clinch the deal and get its hands on Motorola’s patent portfolio. It finally got Chinese approval over the weekend albeit with...
About Newsfeeds / Video Feeds
.gif)
The move is in response to ongoing competition from Microsoft and open-source development alternatives. "We're trying to simplify, as best we can, all the legalistics involving application development," said Sun Fellow Graham Hamilton.
Private clouds solve many problems for enterprises and bring unique operational challenges along with them. There are dozens of companies of all sizes that will build you a private cloud and turn over the keys – then what? Trying to convert a traditional enterprise IT operations team t...
Like a moving company for the cloud, Racemi provides the ability to easily migrate Windows server images to public clouds. The company is a sponsor at the upcoming Cloud Expo where visitors can see Racemi demonstrate server migrations.
Racemi announced on Wednesday its DynaCenter soft...
As a Platinum Plus Sponsor of Cloud Expo New York, Oracle is offering special passes to SYS-CON's 10th International Cloud Expo, which will take place on June 11–14, 2012, at the Javits Center in New York City, New York.
With more than 380,000 customers – including 100 of the Fortune ...
SAP on Tuesday announced its intention to buy Ariba for $4.3 billion, a 19 percent premium on Ariba's market capitalization.
The move comes soon after SAP's SuccessFactors February buy and shows that SAP is quickly and aggressively acquiring its way to a full cloud business services c...
How do we connect clouds? Since the Internet has no SLA, many organizations are concerned about being exposed to the vagaries of the Internet. There are only a few options for concrete quality of service (QoS) when accessing public clouds.
In his session at the 10th International Clo...
Google said first thing Tuesday morning that it’s closed on its $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.
It’s been waiting nine months to clinch the deal and get its hands on Motorola’s patent portfolio. It finally got Chinese approval over the weekend albeit with...
