All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
29 Aug 2006
The licence under which Sun Microsystems chooses to publish the open source Java code will cater to enterprises or the open source community, but will be unable to please both groups.
"The biggest challenge is finding something that is going to balance commercial interests with the desires of the open source community," said Stephen O'Grady, an analyst with RedMonk.
The open source community generally requests that the code is released under the General Public Licence (GPL), which requires that developers publish the code of all the changes they make.
Enterprises, however, are more fond of licences such as the BSD, Apache or Common Development and Distribution Licence, which allow them to mix the code with proprietary software without having to publish the changes.
But these licences are incompatible with the GPL, preventing the inclusion of Sun's open source Java in the Linux kernel.
"Ultimately somebody is going to be unhappy," O'Grady told vnunet.com. "It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't."
Sun could also adopt a dual licence, allowing users to choose between an open source and commercial licence.
While this would address some of the concerns, O'Grady argued that it would not offer a perfect solution. The commercial licence still makes it hard for enterprises to build on top of Java because it requires them to work through Sun.
Sun has not yet disclosed under which licence it will release the Java code. The company said at the LinuxWorld conference earlier this month that it will release Java under one of the 58 licences approved by the Open Source Initiative and that the first code will arrive by October.
Latest stories from Open Source
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Hands on with the highly anticipated Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich hybrid tablet
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
A leading US Prop Trading House/Market Maker is currently...
A leading financial services group has an urgent requirement...
UI Developer Wanted - CSS, HTML, JavaScript with .NET...
Java Developer - Gloucestershire - £35-40k per annum...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
java kernel modules
It is possible to write kernel modules in Java for the Solaris OS. Maybe the author thinks of s.th. similiar for linux.
Posted by: Michael Nischt 02 Sep 2006
Nonsense!
The open source community is not a one-license GPL community. There are literally dozens of open source licenses. The Apache license, the BSD license, the LGPL -these are all OSI approved licenses. It's only a small fraction of the open source community that believes that everything has to be GPL! And why the heck would you compile Java into the kernel??
Posted by: Voice of Reason 30 Aug 2006
Linux kernel?
Not a bat article, but I have one question. "But these licences are incompatible with the GPL, preventing the inclusion of Sun's open source Java in the Linux kernel." Who thinks the kernel developers would let java be included in the kernel anyway? The kernel never became a C interpreter/compiler, or python or perl. Why would it become a JRE/JVM? Later, Seeker
Posted by: seeker5528 30 Aug 2006
Writer has very low linux knowledge.
Writer is not as knowledgable in this field as they want you to believe, as evidenced by the line speaking to the "linux kernel developers". The Linux kernel has nothing to do with the software that runs on it any more than the engine of your car cares about the seatcovers or the stereo system. Recommend that if you are using this news bit as a decision-maker, that you realize that the piece is heavily slanted (as is most mainstream media).
Posted by: John Jones 30 Aug 2006
Everybody can be happy
The BSD license is not, as the article suggests, incompatible with the GPL (whereas the apache license and the CDDL are). If Sun were to go with the BSD license, both sides would be perfectly happy. Of course, given Sun's licensing history, they'll probably go with the CDDL, and at least one of the parties will be unhappy.
Posted by: Haakon Nilsen 30 Aug 2006
Absolute nonsense
Your analyst from redMonk is spreading FUD. For a start, I think Mr. O'Grady is confusing the Open Source community with Free Software Zealots. "The open source community generally requests that the code is released under the General Public Licence (GPL)" is flat out wrong - the open source community requests that code is licenced under an OSI approved licence of which GPL, BSD, Apache and CDDL all qualify. Also, software may be released under a licence that is not the GPL, but is still "GPL compatible" - which would mean that if in the highly unlikely event that the Linux kernel hackers want to incorporate parts of Java, they could, if Sun license Java under a GPL compatible license, such as the New BSD license (though I would love to see an explanation as to why he feels that they would ever want to).
Posted by: Scot Roberts 29 Aug 2006
What?
What an astonishingly poor peice of writing. "But these licences are incompatible with the GPL, preventing the inclusion of Sun's open source Java in the Linux kernel." Why would Java be incorporated into the Linux kernel? This does not make any sense! Do you guys have any actual technical ability or are you hired purely on your ability to massage press releases? As for the subject at hand, the GPL has proven time and time again that it prevents forking and protects freedom better than most of the other "open source" licenses. Sun will probably not choose it, however, because Sun is not working for freedom (as in liberty, not price) but profit.
Posted by: James Randall 29 Aug 2006