JAG is the Java authority within Sun, perhaps THE Java authority anywhere on earth. But what do the others behind the Oak Project all those years ago think about the open-sourcing of Java: has anyone asked Arthur Van Hoff or Andy Bechtolsheim?

Isn't Gosling in Tokyo? Or South Africa? Or in Outer Space (Java runs the Mars Explorer)? How can he be joining this debate? Is he, like Java, now everywhere? "Gosling Everwhere" - I like it.

OK, thanks for the reasons why people would like Java GPL''d.

That first one about "not being able to ship with Linux" would be a serious
problem, if it were accurate. However, as Nathar showed, 2 big distros currently ship Java without problems. As another example, Lindows shows
how Linux can ship without 100% gpl''d code.

The second point about Sun squashing new stuff puzzles me. What is wrong with the Java Community Process? Of course Sun is going to safeguard Java from ideas that will spoil it, such as destroying the ability to run on all architectures. However, compiling Swing (or any part of the run-time) to native seems like a pretty good idea to me. That can be done regardless of whether or not Java is GPL''d. After all, you have all the source.

Looking at the code taints you? I doubt that. Taints you from what? People often overstate the case for tainting. Can you provide any reference to cases decided in the legal system, as opposed to the urban legends that spread by word of mouth.

Java on the desktop almost died in the late 1990''s due to Microsoft''s efforts to fragment the language and fork Java. They were almost successful. Do you think they wouldn''t try again in a New York minute given half the chance? They could just do stealth-funding of 10 start-ups, with that as their goal. Stealth-funding was the approach Microsoft used to get SCO to attack Linux with FUD. SCO is almost out of business now, and their legal case is in the final stages before collapsing, but Microsoft has learned the lesson well.

I just don''t think that the risk/benefit tradeoffs are favorable to GPL''ing Java.

[i]
Problems solved by the GPL (as such)

a) Java can''''t be distributed as part of a Linux distribution unless it''''s bundled with every application that uses it. Also it would be illegal to distribute GCC in this circumstance.
[/i]

Redhat ships Java
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/features/

Slackware ships Java
http://www.slackware.com/pb/?vers=slackware-9.1&set=d

Lest you forget, Sun has quite a history of open letters:

• http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/features/schwartz-ms.html
• http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/features/js-linux.html

These pre-date IBM's letter.

Problems solved by the GPL (as such)

a) Java can''t be distributed as part of a Linux distribution unless it''s bundled with every application that uses it. Also it would be illegal to distribute GCC in this circumstance.

b) Sun can squash attempts to do new and interesting stuff with Java, such as ahead of time compilation (note how you can''t compile swing using java to native code, even off companies that OWN a license)

c) You can''t redistribute what there is in the source. Even looking at it taints you from developing similar code.

People don''t want to hack on the Java standard API because it''s under so many layers of restrictions, it''s certainly not open source in any means - it is purely source available.

If Sun want to do ''something'' that would be good, then they could open source Swing. Swing is (or so it seems) the suckiest, buggiest part of Java there is. Open-sourcing it certainly couldn''t hurt, and it might lead to some people fixing a large number of the bugs in it just for their own sanity. Sun could then fold these fixes into the main Java system.

Alan Williamson, Jason Briggs and myself had this very same discussion during October/November 2002.

It can be only summed up by the following link:
http://www.n-ary.com/java/cartoons.cfm?ID=18
(I''m the one in the orange top :))

Regards
Jason Bell

Sun and IBM are just acting according to their organizational character. While they both promote innovation, Sun promotes its individual leaders while IBM promotes its collective action (creative, committee-forming Borg). While Java is open-source the JDK/API standards and management thereof are in Sun''s control, and that''s where IBM would like more of a partner role on equal footing for management of the API. Management by committee is always slower than by a single leader but running JCP has already opened that issue. The statement about "increasing marketplace acceptance of Java" is ridiculous -- Java is already the standard choice for most non-MS development unless you need the power of C/Objective-C/C++ or you find value in other langusges such as Python.

While Java was invented by people at Sun, it has now matured enough to leave home, go out into the world and extend its family ties.

There''s a lot of sound and fury around this issue. But no one has yet given a convincing answer to the question "what problem is solved by putting Java under the GPL?" So, what problem would that solve?

Every Java compiler kit already comes with the complete source code for the run-time library, so you can fix all the bugs you want. So what''s stopping you?

I don''t understand the suggestion that open-sourcing Java would be somehow a "response to Mono". What specifically would happen, that cannot happen today? The Mono project is doomed. Either it fizzles out on its own like most open source projects, or it becomes wildly successful and Microsoft kills it either by enforcing its patents or by bribing the developement team to
join Microsoft (as they did with Borland and Anders Heljberg).

Nothing stops all "bytecode compilers" (whatever that means) from using the Java core libraries today. They are just libraries. Download them and use them all you want.

So let''s have an end to the woolly wishful thinking, and lets get a clear statement of what you would get if Java was GPL''d, that you don''t have today, given that you already have access to all the run-time source. Thanks.

Sun doesn''t get it. Neither do the most vocal open source advocates. The main reason why Java needs to be open sourced is not about "freedom", but rather that the community at large finally has the ability to move Java along: fix problems and make it competitive with the .NET platform environment.

Java has largely stagnated as a language and an environment:

- fundamental libraries a mess
- java plugin / applet ceded market dominance to flash
- UI implementation buggy and backward

It took the .NET threat for Sun to get off their butt. Still, the environment. Fact is, Java is a losing proposition in Sun''s hands. They''ve shown over the years that they are poor caretakers.

I think -- and I''m really serious -- Sun should probably be looking at open sourcing Java as a response to Mono, if for no other reason.

Miguel and Ximian took a look at Java and decided it didn''t suit their needs, as far as developing rich desktop applications for Linux (e.g. Evolution). So rather than use Java, they decided it was actually better to implement the .Net environment themselves, from scratch. To me, that sounds like a fairly heavy indictment, and one that Sun should be looking into, if they''re smart.

Now you''ve got Mono humming right along, with the developers busy implementing two distinct stacks: One that''s a Microsoft compatibility layer, for using all the stuff you might have written with Visual Studio, and another that''s more Linux-oriented, with GNOME and GTK bindings, Linux printing architecture support, and so on -- the kind of things that people hope would come of an open-sourced Java.

If Sun doesn''t care about this, they''ve got more problems than I realized.

Gosling also says "even more open-source than it is already"... but Java isn''t open source at all according to RMS

Question from the article:

2. "Some have asked what IBM would get if Java were open-sourced: doesn''t IBM already have the source?"

Gosling''s answer: Again yes, they do have the source. It''s also true that anyone can get the source. The major restriction is that if folks want to redistrubute their changes, they have to pass the test suite. Which means that about the only thing that they could get from liberalization is to be able to skip testing.

So it doesn''t seem to be such a big issue after all. The source is already available, and all that is required to change it and redistribute it is to pass a standard suite of tests. Now, call me crazy, but I think that''s not A Bad Thing. This restriction is what helps Java to be uniform and platform-independent.

The benefits of making Java fully open source therefore seem overrated. Isn''t the availablity of the source most important? Or perhaps I''m misunderstanding something ...

Gosling is the one who produced the first non-free version of emacs, which was a direct motivation for RMS to produce the GPL!

He also produced NeWS which was superior to X in almost every way... except... it wasn''t open either!

I''ve always thought that Java will become open source over Gosling''s cold dead body, but maybe he''ll prove me wrong.

By definition Gosling is not the father of Java. He was (and still is) a Sun employee and developed Java during that time, by today standards any product developed by an employee is property of the company, so even McNealy is the father, McNealy is just the obnoxious uncle that says weird things when is drunk.

Gosling was just a surrogate father.

BTW what happened to the other people around OAK project?, did sun killed all of them and throwed them into a ditch?.