Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Article:
  Telling Stories at JavaOne
Subject:   Criticism for its own sake
Date:   2006-05-24 20:00:28
From:   webmink
For the last year or so, Simon Phipps and others at Sun have given talks stressing Sun's history of opening up code and how deeply ingrained Open Source is in Sun's culture. A recurring theme is that there is no need for any more licenses.


Any more open source licenses. Until Java is open source there is no way to work with it except through licensing changes. Sad, but true. You'd prefer me to do nothing and leave things broken, I assume?


They agree with others in the open source community that there is an over-proliferation of licenses. Why then, you might ask, was there a need for CDDL (Common Development and Distribution License)? Ahhh, they answer, that was different. We needed just a few changes from the Mozilla Public License on which it was based. But, that's it. We promise. There's no need for anyone to create any more licenses.


And indeed, no-one has had another Mozilla clone approved by OSI since CDDL, and I retired SISSL so there has been no net increase in open source licenses resulting from creating it, and an effective barrier-by-example created to further proliferation.


So do you have a real issue over licensing, or are you just lashing out because Java SE wasn't open sourced in time for JavaOne like everyone else is?

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

  • Criticism for its own sake
    2006-06-01 02:44:58  jwenting [View]

    "Until Java is open source there is no way to work with it except through licensing changes."


    That's weird, millions of people have worked with Java for the last decade (or part thereof) with no problem at all.

    It's only the open source zealots who feel like you, and most of them are just waiting for a chance to take the Java platform to the chopping block to make it indeed impossible to work with, but for that they first need Java to become open source.


    "You'd prefer me to do nothing and leave things broken, I assume?"

    I'd prefer you to keep your grubby fingers off the platform so it doesn't become terminally broken by your attempts to "improve" it (and that's a generic statement to all the people who have far reaching ideas to "improve" the platform by making sweeping changes to it that would break compatibility).


  • Daniel H. Steinberg photo Criticism for its own sake
    2006-05-26 04:42:57  Daniel H. Steinberg | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [View]

    Simon,

    We've been friends enough years that you know I'm not "just lashing out because Java SE wasn't open sourced in time for JavaOne". You know that I am a middle-of-the-roader with respect to this issue. I don't really care whether or not Java is open sourced. I have a complete different interpretation of the phrase that the question isn't whether it's how. I don't care whether Java is open sourced. But if it is open sourced, I do care how.

    As you well know, there are not things that I can write publicly to answer your challenge here. I do, however, want to respond to your comment:

    "Until Java is open source there is no way to work with it except through licensing changes. Sad, but true. You'd prefer me to do nothing and leave things broken, I assume?"

    Again, you well know that I applaud your efforts and hope you do not leave things broken. But, the options are not a license change or don't open source Java. You also have the option to choose an existing OSI approved license under which Java SE can be open sourced. That was the point I was making in that part of the article. I was agreeing with your public stance this past year that there are enough OSI licenses in existence that no more need to be created.

    Java is now heading to its teens. With the various OS efforts you can see that it is rebelling against the restrictions that kept it in check in its youth. And like a teen there are reasons that prior restrictions won't keep it safe at home anymore. You need to find a new set of rules for it in this new stage of life. I'm hoping Sun will also continue its allowance but that also it can start earning some money on its own.

    D
    • Criticism for its own sake
      2006-06-01 02:53:27  jwenting [View]

      You also need to decide WHAT is open sourced.

      If the language specs, JVM specs, and TCK are open sourced and released to the masses (together inevitably with the brand name) that's the end of Java, it will quickly degenerate into a miriad of mutually incompatible versions all released under the same name.

      If the source of the JDK/JRE is released under an OSS license (and one that does not prevent code compiled with it from having a more restrictive license, so definitely NOT the GPL or similar viral licenses) while control over the language definition and brand name remains centralised with Sun (or given over to an international standards body like ECMA), that danger is far less (but not quite zero).

      In the current environment there is effectively no restriction to people wanting to release an open source JDK/JRE, except of course the amount of effort that would be involved in creating it.

      Any argument that Java won't be accepted and used unless and until it's open sourced is of course fundamentally flawed from the beginning. There are probably millions of people using Java professionally, I'd call that acceptance... In contrast the vaunted open source languages like Python, PHP, and Ruby have hardly any professionals using them at all, certainly not anything on the scale Java has. And that success is in large part brought about by Java NOT being open source but tightly controlled, which brings a stable environment which is something companies desire (and often require) rather than chaotic change and constantly changing language specs which means you can't run or compile the code you wrote last week with this week's compiler.