Sun hopes to attract a new group of developers to Java
Sun promises to open source Java
/v3-uk/news/1962842/sun-promises-source-java
17 May 2006, Tom Sanders at JavaOne in San Francisco , V3
Sun Microsystems is planning to release the source code of the Java programming language, chief executive Jonathan Schwartz said at the JavaOne conference in San Francisco.
"It's not a question of whether we'll open source Java, the question is how, " Schwartz told delegates in his opening keynote at the tradeshow.
By releasing the source code, Sun hopes to attract a new group of developers who previously refused to use the language because of the software licence, Schwartz later added.
The debate about open sourcing Java has been raging for years and was in part fuelled by IBM. Sun has so far resisted calls to release the code over concerns of fragmentation and forking.
A group of developers could split off from the main Java community and form a second, independent group that follows an independent course. This could lead to confusion with developers and cause Java to lose focus.
The dozens of Linux distributions often are considered a prime example of forking gone wrong. Because each distro is different, software developers are forced to certify their applications for each distribution.
This has allowed Red Hat and SuSE to become the de facto commercial Linux standards.
IBM has argued that releasing the Java source code could attract more developers to the language because it guarantees that Java will continue to evolve independently from Sun.
Sun has already released significant software portions around Java including the Glassfish application server.
Java is close to being completely open source already, Rich Green, Sun's newly appointed software boss, argued on stage at JavaOne.
But the company has yet to figure out how to prevent fragmentation while embracing the open source model. "The challenge is to balance all those things, " he said.
Green called on developers and members of the Java Community Process to provide feedback on the best way to open source Java. He did not say when he expects open source Java to be available.
James Governor, a principal analyst with RedMonk, told vnunet.com that he still expects Sun to pay much attention to prevent forking. "Sun will still obsess over it, but it's less of an issue than it's made out to be," he said.
Governor pointed to the speed at which Sun was able to get the latest version of Java EE 5 approved by the Java Community Process, an initiative that allows software vendors including IBM and BEA to provide input on upcoming Java standards.
Whereas in the past new Java versions led to prolonged discussion, this version was essentially "rubberstamped" by the JCP members, Governor argued.
The speediness illustrates that Sun will be able to release new Java versions much faster, allowing the vendor to stay ahead of any open source competition.
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
WHY is this a good idea ?
IBM has argued that releasing the Java source code could attract more developers to the language because it guarantees that Java will continue to evolve independently from Sun.
When has IBM or microsoft been even slightly concerened about this ?
Apple ?
Posted by BIFF, 22 May 2006
Fragmentation
There *is* already fragmentation in place. There are several Java implementations out there, mostly incompatible with each other. There is Sun's, IBM's and the open source alternatives that are trying to reimplement the wheel like gcc, kafee and others.
Releasing the source code under a distributable license will allow Sun's java to be used out of the box in many linux distributions.
Posted by pan, 16 May 2006
But Linux forking is a benefit...
That's how Linux has been able to execute on such a wide variety of platforms. Someone has a specific non-mainstream need, creates a fork, and solves the problem they had.
In terms of the Linux kernel on mainstream hardware, forking has not been an issue. And in terms of the wide variety of distros which are found in the Linux community today, I think some of us would call the end result "healthy competition"...
Posted by Richard Steiner, 16 May 2006
yea right
they have been saying that for years now. believe it when we see it.
Posted by yea right!, 16 May 2006
How to stop forking
Java will be same from forking is they do exactly what Trolltech has done with Qt. If Java has a dual license (GPL and Current License) there will never be a fork. Linux distros will be able to use the GPL version, and commercial users will be able to use it under the current license.
If someone tries to make a fork, the forked Java will only be available under GPL. This means that any software using the libraries will have to be GPL. Therefore all commercial Java developers will have to stick with Sun's version, and the fork will never get anywhere.
Posted by Laszlo Pandy-Szekeres, 16 May 2006
Incorrect statement
It is incorrect to assert that developers are responsible for certifying their application on every GNU/Linux distribution. It is the respective distributions packagers who are responsible for that.
I also strongly disagree with the statement that the multitude of distributions is an example of forking gone wrong. I've used many GNU/Linux distributions and have never encountered serious problems moving from one to the other. Nor have I had problems with applications not being available on any distribution because of incompatibilities.
Further more, because the majority of GNU/Linux applications are open source, it's easy to compile any application for your selected distribution should the need arise (which is very, very rarely).
In the open source world, we call the kind of statements found in your article FUD, or Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Posted by Paul Dorman, 17 May 2006
Licensing and AOT
Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I think the most likely thing to cause forking will either be the licensing issue, which is a constant issue, or compiling to native architectures, or ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation. Licensing has always been a sore point among open source enthusiasts, and I'm pretty sure this'll be no exception. If they want to avoid squawking, it's going to have to be under the GPL, LGPL, or BSD license, or something similar, since these seem to be the most popular. AOT compilation, on the other hand, would (in theory) solve a lot of Java's performance issues; although advocates say these issues are mostly taken care of by just-in-time compilation, I myself am somewhat skeptical, and either way, I for one would love to see the ability to compile a program directly to x86/PPC/etc. code - THAT would truly make Java a near-universal programming language, by just letting you slap on a new chip/OS setup to get new support for it and the entire software library. I know it isn't that simple in practice, of course, but it's sure a big step towards that.
Posted by MP, 17 May 2006
Who forking cares?
The whole worry over forking is a non-issue. Sun can maintain the trademark 'Java' and thus will retain control over what can be called 'Java' and what is just something based on java source code.
The various Linux distros are bad examples for a couple reasons. First off, it's good to have competition in the distros, even if it leads to a little confusion or incompatibility (the latter of which is being dealt with by LSB). Second, they are not forks of Linux itself, which is technically the kernel. Each distro may have their own custom build of the kernel (e.g. Red Hat/Fedora tends to include some backported fixes and drivers in their builds), but they are hardly their own forks.
Posted by AG, 17 May 2006
Good, finally, but dont celebrate just yet...
Let's wait and see what license Sun chooses. Will they decide to release it GPL, CDDL, some franken-license that prevents someone else from taking Java down a different road entirely.
For a "first bold move", this is a great one. Thanks Mr. Schwartz.
Posted by Tim O'Brien, 17 May 2006
Open Source doesn't mean Free Software !
Yes, it's no question: Java is *already* Open Source.
Everyone can already sign up an licence with Sun for free, and download the source code. But can't redistribute a modified version.
That's the main difference beetween Free Software and simple OpenSource software.
Now, the important point is that everyone out there ask Sun to *free* Java (make it free software, in the sense of FSF and OSI). But still, Sun executives don't have a clue, and don't even make the propre distinction ...
Posted by herodiade, 17 May 2006
Forking gone wrong?
"The dozens of Linux distributions often are considered a prime example of forking gone wrong. Because each distro is different, software developers are forced to certify their applications for each distribution."
Wow that didn't make sense at all! Distros are generally considered to be a good thing, and they're not forks. A fork is where you take a codebase and start developing it in a different direction; all distros do is repackage open source projects to make them available to the end user as part of a complete operating system. Developers are not "forced" to do anything.
Furthermore, empirical evidence shows that forking is rare, especially for programming languages. Projects such as these are generally "owned" by the person who created them, who is often known as the DFL - Dictator for Life. A prime example of this would be the popular Python language, which has been open source from its inception and has never had to worry about forks. Another example would be the Linux kernel itself.
The main causes of forking are gross mismanagement and perceived threat to the community, as in the case of the Xfree86 project which decided to change to an unfriendly license and was immediately forked by concerned developers to form the Xorg project.
Provided Sun avoid both of these they have nothing to worry about. Admittedly they are traditionally a Unix vendor, so gross mismanagement may well happen at some point; it's practically the business model for Unix vendors, which is why there are hardly any left these days.
Posted by Daniel, 17 May 2006
Linux distributions are not forks
A Linux distribution is not a fork due to the fact that Linux is not an operating system, but just a kernel. The GNU tools, X Window System, GNOME or KDE desktop environment, and other software, together with the Linux kernel, is what you can normally find in a typical general purpose Linux distribution. There are no Linux forks that I know of. The distributions are just means to put everything together, since Linux isn't made like FreeBSD, where almost every core component of the OS is taken care of centrally. But FreeBSD has it's true forks, the likes of OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.
Posted by Jean Pierre Rupp, 18 May 2006
About forking
What is this article trying to say, that having many distrubutions is a problem?
Software should not be written to match a specific distribution anyway. That's why everyone is given a choice.
Get the flavour of distro you like.
Why not get the flavour of java you like ?
Posted by Jonas Jensen, 08 Nov 2006