James Gosling On The Sun/Microsoft Settlement 361
greg_barton writes "James Gosling has responded to the two previous commentaries cited on Slashdot about the Java Dilemma. Some interesting excerpts: "In Rick Ross's 'Where Is Java In This Settlement?' he worries that Sun may have sold out the Java community. We didn't. We have not sold our soul to the Dark Side." and "There's a long thread of discussion on Slashdot 'Two Takes on the Java Dilemma' that is pretty entertaining, from a wow, what are they smoking! point of view. There are voices of reason, and conspiracy nuts.""
Where is IBM in the settlement? (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM is the only company in the world that could realistically engage in a multi-front competitive battle with Microsoft. And if they were capable of gaining more control of Java (perhaps by a cash investment in Sun, or perhaps even buying them) they would pose a far greater threat to Microsoft than Netscape ever did. IBM's e-business strategy coupled with Java control would be an unstoppable force.
People talk about Microsoft competitors yet they raise company names like Sun, Real, or Netscape. The threat they pose to Microsoft is a drop in the bucket compared to IBM and their e-business strategy. A strategy that is incredibly reliant on Java.
Taking it a logical step further lets assume Microsoft made this settlement not to take *Sun* out of the game, but rather to take *IBM* out of the game. Perhaps the silence on the Java front is because $2 billion is the price to get Sun to walk away from Java. Silently. Could this cause Rich Green to leave in disgust?
Personally I suspect this deal was all about dealing a terrible blow to IBM. I think the one thing Sun and Microsoft aren't talking about is the one thing they ever really cared about in this deal -- Java. I hope not, but the more I read the more sure I become that Sun has done a deal with the devil and Java was the bargaining chip.
Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would guess that this is because before Microsoft was the big evil corporation that is going to take over the world, IBM was.
The difference being that IBM cut down dramatically on acts that could potentially be interpreted as anti-competative, and maybe even took a step back. I remember some IBM people telling me that IBM made a lot of bussiness mistakes in the late 80s early 90s. This might or might not be related to the IBM anti-trust trial, but before then they had stopped being quite so ruthless.
The difference between IBM's and Microsoft's anti-trust trials were I don't think IBM ever got convicted, and they cut it out anyway so it became a moot point, while Microsoft was convicted, but nothing is being done to tame them.
IBM is the only company in the world that could realistically engage in a multi-front competitive battle with Microsoft.
True, and one would hope that an IBM monopoly would at least write better software than Microsoft. And they are supporting Linux right now so they might be content to share the wealth, as long as they are still making buckets of money themselves, and not force the entire world to use crappy software.
Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I thought that was the whole point of the GPL, it is so free, you can make money off of it.
But I think it will be a while yet until we see Linux take over AIX. But it would be nice to have smit on linux.
This reminds me of a quote in someone's
Primarily what I want is software that doesn't suck.
If it is GPLed too all the better.
If IBM makes a profit from it good for them.
If I can make a profit from it then I'm really happy
Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (Score:2)
If this isn't botched too badly, both sides come pretty close to getting "something for nothing".
Actually, seems like IBM's major contributions have been low-profile down-in-the-trenches stuff that everyone else benefits from more than IBM.
From IBM's perspective, if you have a goose that lays golden eggs, it's probably not a good idea to scrimp on chicken feed.
Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that this goose will continue shooting out eggs by the dozen regardless of how IBM or anybody else uses the product of its work.
Christ, how many operating systems has IBM cranked out *completely on it's own* in the past 30 years? Not getting support from that schitzoid agglomerate called "the Linux community" probably ranks pretty low on their list of priorities. If it was "re
You forgot about Javachips (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair, Sun's plans included executing those bytecodes natively, on Java CPUs [sun.com]. So from that perspective, they were simply inventing a new reduced-instruction-set stack machine architecture, using knowledge gained from 50 years of CPU evolution. The plan was to create and market Javastations running the JavaOS natively on those Java CPUs
Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (Score:3, Funny)
Haven't you read about what the native API for longhorn is going to be?
It's a sad, sad day for all the little people who might give a damn.
Did you even read the article? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you just not notice this? Or did you not read the article? I'm leaning toward the second, since first off it references nothing in this article whatsoever, and second that's an awful long and carefully-formed post to have gotten FP on. Either you read and type reeeal fast, or you wrote this beforehand and waited for another Sun story so you could grab an early post number and get up to Score:5.
So, at any rate, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read the article. So is what you are implying by your post that you believe Mr. Gosling to be lying when he explicitly brings up the things you allege and says they are entirely untrue and without basis? Why?
Re:Did you even read the article? (Score:3, Informative)
You just got people to mod him down and you just linked back to his current post.
I Feel kinda bad for the dude though, he made a debateably insightful post, and was able to do it as a first post because he's a subscriber.
Bravo on your troll though.
Re:Did you even read the article? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where is IBM in the settlement? (Score:3, Interesting)
true, but from an IBM perspective there is no reason to do so:
1 - does IBM want to be MS? no.
2 - would they have a good chance of winning if they tried? no.
3 - does IBM make bucketloads of money doing what they are doing right now? yes.
IBM has given up on dominating the OS market a long time ago. And it has since learned that there was no harm in that. MS' star is sinking and IBM can s
Yanno... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sun is now in quite the pickle. Sparcstations arent a contender for the desktop. Their server sales are being trashed by Linux on Intel, and Linux on mainframe.
Their latest play MadHatter looks nice but so does lindows,suse, and redhat. The latter 3 have one great thing going for them, they are one time licenses not perpetual service contracts like mad hatter.
Its no wonder that they paid SCO a licenses fee and are now dissing Linux. Its also no wonder that Bill Joy left the company.
Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:2, Insightful)
I respect Gosling as a very intelligent programmer and language designer, but his willingness to engage in persona
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention the fact software compiled with gcj or linked with libgcj don't fall under the GPL. You can write proprietary software and compile with gcj and not be "infected" by the GPL. So this part of Gosling's anti-RMS rant is pure FUD.
The real problem is that after all of the work that Sun has put into making Java a platform in real life Java is currently splitting into a million different directions. gcj and GNU Classpath are picking up steam, IBM is pushing platform dependent SWT and Eclipse instead of Swing, etc. With Sun losing the hardware war to Intel and AMD, and the UNIX war to Linux, that leaves Sun with Java as its best hope for a recovery. However, it's a pretty slim hope. Java application servers are basically a comodity as are Java development tools.
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3, Insightful)
While that bit was very confusing, what I believe Gosling was trying to do with his "viral license" paragraph was that he was simply trying to set up a comparison between the license on the Java materials and the GPL. I think he wasn't so much trying to say "the GPL is
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3, Interesting)
back to what is independent... (Score:3, Informative)
As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, rega
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:4, Interesting)
The implication, then, is that not only does Sun's license permit you to modify and restribute Java, it permits you to do so under any license of your chosing.
I find this highly suspect, though I don't know for sure that it's untrue. If this is the case, why doesn't the FSF regard it as a Free Software license (although, like BSD, obviously not a Copyleft license)? Why hasn't the OSI certified it as an Open Source license? Why isn't it included in Debian?
My impression was that Sun's Java implementations were distributed under a look-but-don't-touch license. That is, while the source is provided, you are not permitted to modify and redistribute it. If this impression is incorrect, I'd really like to know, but if it isn't, then I'd have to say that Gosling is either quite ignorant about the GPL, or he's being deliberately misleading in his characterization of it.
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3, Informative)
No, this is not what he's talking about. He's referring to the fact that if you link with a GPL'd library, even without modification, your software needs to be licensed with GPL. In this case, if Java was licensed in GPL, all software written would also have to be licensed i
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3, Informative)
Which is why the option of LGPL exists.. or GPL plus some extra exemptions.. or other similar licenses that force freedom of the libraries but allow linking by that which is non-free.
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, it always seemed t
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:4, Insightful)
It is no surprise to see Gosling attack the GPL. He is personally responsible for it's creation, and I don't mean that as a compliment. If it wasn't for him, RMS would have continued releasing his work into the public domain, at least until the next Gosling came along and demonstrated that freedom needs to be protected.
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see. My first exposure to RMS was being told as an undergrad that if I wanted to, I could go log into his accounts at MIT because he didn't bother to keep a password. He has proceeded to rant and rave and rail against anything that is not his pure community of software technicians giving their every line for the greater good.
RMS is essentially a kook.
I couldn't have said it better myself. He has certainly done many great things with his efforts, but in the general scheme of things, he's a kook. If you weren't so hung up on taking the observation personally and finding people to label "Anti Free" perhaps you'd be better able to accept this.
Finally, and to the point, Gosling doesn't call him a kook; he comments that RMS has a peculiar (as in unique) definition of "Free". Some of his comments about GPL are less charitable, but they don't involve whether RMS is a kook or not.
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:2, Funny)
1) It's GNU/Linux!
2) He still hates Apple.
3) Why wasn't the book free?
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft charges money for access to useful programs and sometimes gives access to the source code for huge amounts of money. After paying for this, program
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it did contain stunningly misleading comparisons between the GPL and Java's licensing. He hides it all in a clever ruse- he accuses Stallman of redefining freedom to suit Stallman's agenda, then redefines freedom himself to suit Gosling's agenda. I'll leave as an exercise to the reader which license gives you more freedoms. Hint: it's the GPL.
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3)
Well, that's English for you.
I believe that people in the community differentiate between the two meanings by using the words gratis and libre.
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:2)
Without context, "free" has about as much objective meaning as "good." You'll find a simple description of the context in which RMS uses the word in Categories of Free and Non-Free Software [gnu.org]. Compared to Gosling's parroted pejoratives, like "viral infection," this is a much more useful basis for discussion.
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:2)
Huh? Free when RMS uses it isn't "free for anyony to get and use", whoever anyony is. Free when RMS uses it is free as in freedom, a meaning that many in the proprietary software community seem to have conveniently forgotten.
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:5, Interesting)
free (P) Pronunciation Key (fr)
adj. freer, freest
1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
3.a. Having political independence: "America... is the freest and wealthiest nation in the world" (Rudolph W. Giuliani).
3.b. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
3.c. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
RMS is using definition 3.b., "Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties."
1. You make your own decision about whether you wish to become subject to the GPL license (by choosing whether you wish to distribute it or derivative works).
2. By accepting those terms, you agree to a set of civil liberties; namely, that the work and all derivative works, if distributed, must be made available for access and mutation.
This is identical to the concept of "free" used in the US government and the governments of many other nations. You are free to be a US citizen if you agree that you will not, for example, deny another the right to speak. You are also bound to certain courses of action by your freedom; for example, it is your personal duty to fix the government when it gets too far out of line. The GPL has a political agenda just like the US Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights do, and in both cases, they are in accord with one of the commonly accepted definitions of "free."
None of this makes RMS's definition "right", or Gosling's definition "wrong." The only objectively wrong thing would be to say that either of them is wrong. Both forms of "free" are encompassed in the definition of the term "free."
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it means free so long as you share any new software you write that derives from it, even if it doesn't modify the original GPL'd code at all.
If you don't like that, write your own code, or negotiate a separate license from the copyright holders.
I completely agree that that's fair, and as the author of the original code, that's your right to demand that. However, the point is don't try and call that "free." It's not. The GPL forces itself on all d
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gosling's RMS comments show him to be anti-Free (Score:2)
Applying conservation of energy theory to intellectual property concepts is indeed a fallacy, but not for any of the reasons you named. You go on to attack conservation of energy itself, which is invalid, as any physicist can effortless blast your "arguments" full of holes.
What's wrong with Gosling's argument is that software (like all intellectual property), is neither matter nor energy, but information. Normal conservation
Change in Rhetoric (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Change in Rhetoric (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me making the payments as part of a settlement agreement and simply disengaging might have been the more sensible option from a pragmatic point of view.
That said, I don't actually know.
Re:Change in Rhetoric (Score:5, Insightful)
I dissagree.
Has it not dawned on anyone else that Microsoft current averarching agenda is the Trusted Computing rollout? The information on the Microsoft/Sun deal is very light on details, but it sure looked to me like it included all the licencing and protocals Sun would need to produce Trusted Computing servers to operate with Microsoft Trusted desktops. It specifically mentioned "identity management" interoperability.
With Sun on board Microsoft gets to avoid charges that it's "Palladium" system is a monopoly. Suddenly it is a multi platform multivendor standard. $2 billion to sweepaway past anti-trust charges, to ensure
And mere days later Microsoft hands over nearly another half-billion to InterTrust to scoop up all of the DRM patents rights for Trusted Computing.
Microsoft is spreading the money around to pave the way for Trusted Computing. And for Microsoft it's pocket change.
What really catched my attention though is the timing on the two deals. Suns deal with Microsoft clears up past infringents by both parties, it grants Sun future rights to the required patentas Microsoft held. BUT! Microsoft did not yet hold InterTrust's DRM patents. Did Microsoft just pull a fast one on SUN? Possibly leaving Sun totally screwed because the deal did NOT include the InterTrust patents that Sun would actually end up needing?
That would be EXACTLY the sort of "sharp" business tactics Microsoft is notorious for. They dazzle their business "partners" with huge dollar signs to sign a deal, all the while holding a plan to yank the rug out from under them.
I think Sun better examine the InterTrust deal under a microscope then review their own contracts.
-
How much does murder cost? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:How much does murder cost? (Score:2)
No, I don't remember any of those times either.
---
Oh yeah, in the Eolas patent case, they were on the right side.
Conspiracies (Score:2)
But there really is a conspiracy!
Seriously though, if there was a conspiracy, would not the voices of reason then become the trolls, and the conspiracy nuts become the voices of reason?
let's see what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have faith in companies. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:let's see what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll have to agree with that sentiment.
Java is not like a web browser where the users would be ignorant, and just use Microsoft's because that's what they are given. Java developers _know_ who is the authentic source for Java technology. So it's not like Java developers in their masses are going to adopt whatever idiosyncrasies Microsoft implements next.
I think that Sun should be able to keep ahead of Microsoft on the curve of giving developers what they want (history shows that when somebody implements a good idea, Microsoft copies).
I don't think McNealy would let Microsoft steer the ship. I think this is a chess match. The current move may perplex you, as it should, but the reasons why the move was made will be clear soon.
Sun is a fierce in nature when it comes to Microsoft. Don't let yourself think that they gave in so easily. How many Microsoft competitors do you know of that were able to grep a $2 billon settlement out of them?
Please clarify (Score:2, Interesting)
In exactly what way does Sun "shift direction almost as often as a political candidate"?
But you can't even redistribute unmodified copies of it, which is why no linux distro includes a JVM. To use Java under Linux requires a user to go search it out, download a non-trivial package and install it.
Whaa? I am typing these words into Epiphany on a Gentoo Linux machine. This machine has a fully functional JVM on it. I didn't install this JVM or do an
Re:Please clarify (Score:2)
> a political candidate"?
You must be new here. For a vivid example, familiar to most around these parts, take a look at their ever changing stances on Linux. Some years they ignore it as a 'toy' others it is an enemy, then in still others they are selling it, rinse & repeat. Currently they are talking out both sides of their ass, selling it on the desktop, sorta selling it on small servers, while passing SCO money under the tabl
Re:let's see what happens (Score:5, Informative)
Sun's JVM is a free download.
That might be true for Sun's JVM.
You're simply wrong.
There are several free JVMs on Linux and they are trivial to install (apt-get install).
Re:let's see what happens (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you trust your ecommerce site to Linux?
Let's face it, certification gives a certain amount of trust, but familiarity gives the rest.
Re:let's see what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends. Linux and *BSD power a majority of the really impressive sites on the network so I'd certainly be in good company. Solaris is just too expensive for something so clusterable like web services.
Might use a big Solaris box to host the DB on the backend if the site was really major. Postgresql has made a lot of progress and I'll probably revise this remark in another year or so, but Oracle/DB2/Sybase is still what I'd want running the backend if a lot of money was riding on it just because it they have been doing replication and other such enterprise level things long enough to be trustworthy. Of course Oracle and IBM both support Linux as a tier 1 platform these days so running Linux all the way to the backend is certainly possible for all but the largest users who need the 128way Sun boxes.
And I think it goes without saying that Windows has no place in the enterprise except as legacy desktops. Period, end of story. Anyone suggesting otherwise has instantly proven themself to be incompetent and not to be trusted for advice on IT matters.
Re:let's see what happens (Score:3, Interesting)
So the real complaint isn't that the Linux distros don't include JVMs (which is what jmorris originally claimed and why I pointed out three free JVMs included with Linux distros) but that jmorris and yourself have found the free JVMs to be of inferior quality. That has nothing to do with being "certified for production use" as you later asked.
My point about Linux was that at one
See my Gosling msoking weed post (Score:2, Interesting)
Gosling makes several errors both on the economic trends of SUN in the server hardware sector the difference between a state machine and a desktop manager and etc..
Also remember that the linux standard survives and thrives under GPL stewardship..a charge Gosling never has completely refuted other to resort to name calling..
You will probalby see more name callign from several sectors at Sun.. sad really.. so much could be solved by stoppi
Someone help me... (Score:5, Funny)
Thread title? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe they are afraid that James is going to dramaticically increase the amount he is charging them for radiant energy. Personally I think we should all boycott James Gosling as I don't believe he as actually laid claim to the sun by actually going there.
Even starting to sound like microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike GPLd software, the Java sources don't come with a viral infection clause that requires you to apply the GPL to your own code
Didn't sell your soul, huh?
Re:Even starting to sound like microsoft (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Even starting to sound like microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Even starting to sound like microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Even starting to sound like microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
A developer with no obligations to others can impose any condition he wishes on a user who desires to use his creation. If you wrote it all yourself and didn't put that tiniest bit of GPLed code in then by all means exercise that freedom.
A user with no obligations to developers can claim any benefit of the code for himself, up and to and including claims of authorship and invention. A user in that position can profit from that code in any way he wishes and return nothing to the developer....not acknowledgement, not improvements, absolutely nothing he doesn't feel like doing.
In the real world, there isn't a way for both users and developers to have no responsibilities whatsoever regarding software. There are a lot of ways to balance the situation so that both sides can retain significant freedoms hence the spectrum of FOSS licenses. Most of these compromises between original developers and downstream recipients can reasonably be called free. ALL of them have restrictions or obligations for at least the recipient of a software package. Even the "truly free" BSD licenses absolutely require that the copyright notice be preserved. It also implictly requires acknowlegement that author had the right to license his work that a way and indeed still owns the original work. It is a dangerous subtlety for the likes of SCO to miss if they try to do to the BSD community what they are doing to the Linux community.
The GPL preserves certain liberties (the so-called "four freedoms") as long as certain responsibilities are accepted. You seem to want those liberties without the responsibility, that "tiniest bit of GPLed code". If you don't use that code then there isn't much argument is there?
I suppose that leaves room for the ongoing semantic debate over what freedom actually is. But there is no reasonable definition of freedom that doesn't include responsibility.
Re:Even starting to sound like microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not "free!" Don't you get it? Your response is analogous to someone saying, "Music CDs are not 'free', because I'm not allowed to rip them to MP3 and give them to my friends," and you responding "You're perfectly free to not buy the CDs, and to make your own music."
Just because you happen to agree with the agenda in the GPL doesn't mean you can deny that the agenda exists.
The original poster is correct. If I am not free to use your software however I want, including closing up my derived source and selling the whole she-bang, then it is not truly "free."
Re:Even starting to sound like microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Semantics and sidetracks aside, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. I suppose we could have "perfectly free" societies where one could sell himself into slavery or freely murder and steal but I don't think it would last very long. Any kind of "workable freedom" will have some sort of reponsibility, consequences, or obligations.
Free is when you give me the code and I have absolutely no obligation upon use.
Re:Even starting to sound like microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
I have one question for you:
What do you think would happen if you included a "little part" of Microsoft code?
*ALL* copyright is viral. If you use even a single line of Microsoft code you are infected by Microsoft's copyright.
If GPL is viral then Microsoft is ebola. GPL code may "infect" you if you choose to use it, but Microsoft code infects and instantly kill your entire project.
-
Re:Even starting to sound like microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't the black/white world you make it out to be.
umm, I hate to say it but he's somewhat correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember Java is a library. They'd have to go with the LGPL.
Personally, I am a big fun of java and have been for years. I am a big fan of Open source, and have been for even longer. But I can not understand why people see the need for merging the two.
I have serious doubts that Java would continue at its current development schedule if open sourced. Nothing is stopping open source groups from working on a free Java r
Here's a wonderful quote... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not specific enough (Score:4, Funny)
Is that a "Wow! What are they smoking? Since when were drugs for nerds?" point of view he's talking about or perhaps a "Wow! What are they smoking? Why is their English still mostly intact?" or (most probably) "Wow! What are they smoking? Can I get that here in the States?"
These Java supporters are really shady characters. Corrupting our youth's minds...
1st law of thermodynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
Art doesn't obey the first law of thermodynamics either. Some people put their whole life, unrecognized, into creating art, and when they are long gone, their work is still with us. COMPENSATION and BUSINESS obey the 1st law of thermodynamics, but that is by no means the only driving force behind people.
Re:1st law of thermodynamics (Score:2, Insightful)
Or sometimes it is purely personal, and they only do it to please themselves. So it isn't a one way thing where they put in all this energy to create and get nothing in return.
I really do believe that there is a return of some sort on every action that is taken by any one per
Re:1st law of thermodynamics (Score:2)
Only when material wealth is made mostly irrelevant by technology will the idea of "whuffie" really take off.
--
Sun's Generous Patent Grant (Score:5, Informative)
So Java seems to be less encumbered than .Net at this point.
Re:Sun's Generous Patent Grant (Score:3, Insightful)
Notably the fact that the patent grant only applies for implementations that:
We have not sold our soul to the Dark Side (Score:3, Funny)
Free but not as in Beer (Score:5, Interesting)
Palm and Sun had differences of J2ME, Palm works with IBM and viola, J2ME for Palm the way palm wanted it, not Sun.
So, from a technology High Ground, Sun doesn't control Java explicitly, and that's a good thing. Sun's controls on Java do make sense as Gosling pointed out however let's not forget the J2EE 1.2 specification that was held up by a voting member because of EJB 2.0 compliance issues. In this case the JSR voting member had a conflict with voting on the spec while their product didn't adhere to it. So, EJB 2.0 gets held up, which holds up J2EE 1.2. That happened and the company's initials have a B in them, but it's not IBM.
So, while the JSR process isn't perfect, the thought that vendors are most of the JSR participants isn't all bad, unless a log jam occurs. Maybe someday J2ME will be as ubiquitious as J2SE, J2EE isn't quite there yet, but getting there. Let's also not forget the whole JBoss issue, but that's another thread.
Hillarious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you blame them? (Score:2)
Show me a "voice of reason" regarding business deals with MacroShaft, and I'll show you someone who's been in a cave since the mid-80's. Some of us are "conspiracy nuts" only because we've seen too many kicked there so often by The Monopoly.
= 9J =
But Java's still dependent on the interests of Sun (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure James Gosling only wants Java to flourish. But the big catch about the JDK's licence (SCSL) is that it gives Sun a Nuclear Button. Sun has the power to force the Java platform's development to go only in directions they approve. And however pure their intentions are, as a public company they have a legal duty to use that power in a way that makes the most money for their shareholders. If it is ever more profitable to kill Java, for Microsoft cash, say, then Sun will be legally obliged to do it.
Compare this to Perl or Python, where there is no Nuclear Button. No-one has the power to prohibit derivatives. And so Perl and Python developers have a much more concrete guarantee that those languages will still be living languages in 20 years' time. Meanwhile there's no sign of the "fragmentation problem" which James Gosling argues they ought to suffer from being truly Open-Source.
A 'Very Good Thing' for whom? Microsoft's MCPP (Score:4, Interesting)
Sun's signing into Microsoft's Communications Protocol Program locks Sun and Sun customers into interoperating with any Microsoft system on Microsoft's strict terms, conditions and royalty rates. It also denies the possibility that the code using those Microsoft protocols will ever be open sourced.
This raises serous questions. For example, how much longer will Sun be free to distribute and integrate SAMBA with the Java Desktop? Will Sun's signing of the MCPP have a network affect on vendors who have access to Sun's source code -- will they also be forced to sign up to the MCPP?
I understand Sun's attempt to spin "Peace in our time" into "This Was Their Finest Hour" [java.net]however, if you look where the quote originated from...
We can be truly thankful that Churchill's next action was not to sign a treaty with Hitler, accepting gold looted from occupied states as payment for damages done.OK (Score:3, Informative)
From the April 2, 2004 Sun Press Releases [sun.com]
Deja Vu (Score:2)
Gosling or Joy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Dr. James Gosling is a Sun Microsystems fellow who managed the group that created Java in the early 1990s.
Who is the creator of Java?
Everyone knows it is Gosling, but for some reason Sun would have you believe Bill Joy did it. Why? Sun only acknowledges that Gosling managed those who created Java. So did Gosling manage Bill Joy as well? This makes no sense. If a wookie lives on Endor you must acquit.
Freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
He responds to Stallman by saying:
a) The GPL is not free, it has a strong political agenda.
b) Java is free in many respects (you don't pay to use the JVM, you can see the source). Java sources don't have a viral licence like the GPL.
c) Giving freedom to JVM 'implementors' would be damaging to JVM 'users' (Java developers).
I will tackle these in turn:
a) Gosling implies the FSF has a 'hidden' political agenda. Their agenda is about as far from hidden as I can imagine - I don't think he has read any of the documents on the FSF web site. If you don't think the GPL promotes more freedom than, say, the Java licence, you have an extremely simplistic view of freedom. The political agenda is that the GPL strongly tries to promote a whole world of free software - and if you don't necessarily always agree with that part of the agenda, you can do as I do and use the LGPL or BSD licences. The main point is, if you currently want to ship a product based on Sun's JVM code, you need to licence the code from them to do that. If that code were GPL, it would give all of us freedom to work with the code, but possibly mean many users would no longer need to pay to licence the code from Sun (their fear) - unless of course they didn't want to give away their modifications, in which case they would be in *exactly the same* position they are in now, and could continue to pay Sun for a licence with different terms.
b) Gosling switches from Free(dom) Software to free(beer) (Open Source) software. I can use Internet Explorer for free too, but it certainly isn't Free Software. Stallman is most definitely talking about Freedom. I don't care if I can *see* the source code, the issue is, what can I *do* with that code. The Java licence gives me a *lot* less Freedom than the GPL in that regard. Goslings response has no value for the many of us who don't care too much for the Open Source movement.
c) You already have a licensing program for the term "Java" and associated logos and trademarks - we aren't asking you to give those away. As a Java developer, I would still like to see the guarantees of a licensing program - do like every other industry does and say "if you don't see logo X, you aren't getting 'Java'". If you make the JVM implementation Free Software, it doesn't mean you have to let everyone label their products built on that code as 'Java'. And as for any protections for users/developers, this is a myth anyhow. Look at the SWT toolkit (used to build Eclipse) for an example - what happens if it takes off in popularity (it's going that way), what protections do you have then? None.
And although not mentioned, most developers from the Free Sofware world will also view Java Community Process as a farce as well. Look at the lobbying Apache had to do recently to be allowed to implement JCP specs for one example of how this process does nothing to guarantee our Freedom. (I also fail to understand the communities abhorrent reaction to the W3C patent policy discussions, yet the seeming acceptance of many for the JCP.)
Moving into the information age, it is my view that the foundation technology we build our word around should not ultimately be under the control of any single group or corporation. Using Free Software provides me with a number of guarantees that the programs/code I use will always be there for me, and that I will always have the freedom to use, modify, and rely on those for myself or my business. Java, as provided by Sun, does not have those guarantees.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
he states that both GPL and Java licenses are free in different senses, that they have different (not hidden) agendas, and that they have different 'catches' (re-release source for GPL, and compat testing for Java).
he has an opinion; it clearly isn't yours, but he seemed fair about it.
cheers
Gosling's beef with RMS: Full Disclosure (Score:5, Informative)
Some of you may know this already, but for those who don't, RMS and James Gosling had a feud in the 80s over Gosling's Emacs (which was a TECO Emacs workalike). Apparently, there were agreements between Gosling and several other developers to the effect that they could modify and redistribute the source to Gosling's Emacs. RMS decided to base the original GNU Emacs on Gosling's code. Apparently, this happened after Gosling decided to sell the rights to his Emacs clone to Unipress, and bitter legal threats ensued. This seems to have been one of the primary motivations for the GPL. I've never seen Gosling speak or write about the incident since. RMS gave a speech [gnu.org] in 1986 where he recounted the incident, and he didn't have a lot of good things to say about Gosling:
That speech also has a few memorable quotes, and I highly recommend you read it. I haven't heard or read RMS referring to Gosling personally since, but I believe that the incident itself has been recalled by him a few times since.
Now for my part of the disclosure: I currently attend the University of Calgary, where James Gosling is the only persona anywhere near to fame that the Computer Science department has ever produced (Theo de Raadt doesn't count, unless your definition of "produce" involves scandal and legal threats).
The above is mostly just hearsay and speculation, and should not be taken as authoritative, except the excerpt from RMS's speech.
the JAVA licence (Score:3, Interesting)
That way:
A.developers developing stuff in the JAVA language and against the JAVA APIs can do so and know that their stuff will run on anything labeled "JAVA".
B.developers that want to write JAVA compilers, VMs, class libraries and whatever else (including modified versions of Suns stuff) can do so totally free from any restrictions. But they cant call what they release "JAVA" unless it has gone through the compatibility tests.
and C.Sun retains control over the JAVA name and the JAVA system. The fears of sun that JAVA would fragment and you would get incompatible versions of JAVA wouldnt happen because anything that hasnt passed the tests is not JAVA and cant be labeled as such.
Also, those who want to repackage the Sun stuff without modifying it (i.e. repackage in ) can do so and you wouldnt need to do the different, wierd (compared to how things are normally installed) install for JAVA anymore.
Oh and Sun should have told MS they couldnt distribute, modify, fix or support their broken JAVA VM anymore.
Re:the JAVA licence (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why a patch set for Java's sources was in the FreeBSD ports forever, yet everyone says 'freebsd didn't have Java.' There was no binary distribution of that possible because it hadn't passed through Sun yet.
The Java specs are available for the most part. The only problem is no one knows what the tests for Java compliance are, but anyone with the cash can send software to take them and be able to be called 'Java.' Other then that, everything you asked for in your post is already t
Reaction to Gosling's comments (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of the comments were extreme, but position papers like these should not need to be a reaction to community concern, they should anticipate it.
So What's The Big Deal Here? (Score:3, Funny)
Let their actions, and the result of those actions, speak for themselves -- NOT this MS-Approved sermon on the mount. Basic Fact: Sun and Microsoft are in bed together... just looking at history, Microsoft and ANYBODY in bed together is bad for Open Source and Free Software. And this is probably bad for Apple, too.
But overall, nice work from Keep-It-Closed-Gosling in trying to turn the FOSS community against itself again.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
There are Free open source implementations of Java already. Not quite up to the same level as the Sun's offerings yet, but it is difficult to hit a moving target...
Re:mmhmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mmhmm (Score:2)
Now we watch and see how much effort Sun continues to put into there Java desktop. If they just let the momentum where out, then it was all a game to get rich via MS cash.
Re:mmhmm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:mmhmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How does Sun make money from Java? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
i started java development back before i had a real consciousness about licensing issues. ever since, i've been hoping we'd see java set free. now that the possibility has all but been removed, i too have turned my attentions to Python.