Sun will never open source Java - its the only thing left with any value in the entire company.

Open sourcing the spec is the Java Community Process, and it's not really open source, it's a semi-open community process for influencing the direction of Java. Open Sourcing java would be changing the Sun Java License to an open source type of license. In which case, anybody could download the source and do whatever they wanted. As it is, Sun controls the release of java versions, and they decide what goes into a release, and for the most part, Sun engineers code and test the release.

>Didn't Microsoft try to make their own Java

>implementation(J++) and didn't sun go after them for it

>because it didn't stick to the java standards? Is that open

>source?

No, that was Microsoft trying to create a proprietary version of Java to tie developers to the the Microsoft platform. It was also a licensing terms violation, which the courts found for Sun. That's where C# comes from. It's a rip-off of Java with Microsoft proprietary hooks.

I have to support one purchased application that worked on J2RE 1.4.2_01, but Sun made a significant change to at least one API going to 1.4.2_02 that broke that application. I also have to support an application purchased from another vendor that requires at least 1.4.2_04 and does not run on 1.4.2_02. With Sun's every sub-sub-sub version being a fork, I can hardly wait for others to add to the confusion.

Whilst I can see the benefits of open sourcing java I just can't see how any open source organisation can take on something as big as Java especially the J2EE side of things with the compatibility suites used to certify J2EE compliance. Also, as a Java certified engineer, what will happen to any certification program?

IMHO - Open sourcing java is a nice idea in theory but not in practice.

So, what's the difference between the Java *spec* being open source (which it is i think) and Java itself being open source? Can someone explain me in simple terms?

** [from the article] At JavaOne Sun was saying that they could see no benefit in making Java more open. I think they were wrong **

Seems now that Sun agrees.

Didn't Microsoft try to make their own Java implementation(J++) and didn't sun go after them for it because it didn't stick to the java standards? Is that open source?

If you don't like the linux kernel you can take the code, make your own kernel, and even break whatever standards you want....Linus isn't going to drag you to court for breaking the POSIX standard or something.

Can the same be said or Java? In fact parts of it are still under a propietary license as the article states...so people who live in glass houses.....

Sun's entire contribution to Open Source at this point has been to try to hurt Microsoft by giving away an office suite that they bought from somebody else. At the same time, they've trash-talked Linux at every opportunity, and tried to steal the thunder of open source by releasing Solaris and Java under "community" processes that have the form but not the substance.

Does that sound to you like a company "on the same side" as something even as nebulous as the free software/open source community? It's not enough to be against Microsoft.

I don't mind the JCP as a way to manage the "official release" of Java. It seems to be working just fine.

What I do mind is obnoxious licenses limiting the freedom of end-users and hobbyists. They could very well be using the same process they're using today, but release their code (and specifications) under a free license.

## What used in the old days to be called "A Definite Maybe" ##

Perhaps so, but a "definite maybe" from Sun's own director of technology outreach puts the emphasis more on the definite and less on the maybe.

Maybe? ;-)