Eitan Suez's Blog

A change of heart on the issue of open sourcing Java

In the weeks after Eric Raymond's famous open letter to Sun MicroSystems on the topic of open sourcing Java, I took the position of being a strong advocate of this request. Several months have now passed and I've had a change of heart.

As much as one would like to see a piece of software open sourced, we must not forget that Java does not belong to us. Specifically, it belongs to its owner, Sun MicroSystems. Sun MicroSystems should not be pressured to open source anything. Of course, Sun is always welcome to open source whatever codebase it wishes to, but that is a decision for Sun to make. We should not think negatively of Sun (or anyone) for choosing other paths. As far as I know, this way of thinking is congruent with open source culture.

Put yourself in their shoes: you've been working for years on an important piece of software that gives you great pride. You've been fair and open (and successful) and have attracted a significant community. Now that community comes to you and says: open source it! It belongs to all of us! I beg to differ. It does not.

I still believe that the open source "way" of managing projects is its key success ingredient (irrespective of whether or not the projects are open source). And I still believe that anyone who decides to adopt this method is likely to see a more rapid adoption and evolution of its software products.

We, as a community, should commend Sun for being as open and inclusive as they have been up until now.

Comments

• Well said.

  Patents are much more of a threat then "closed sources"

  Witness the chilling effect of Kodak's patent win against Sun and Java... Open Source or not, a patent holder can shut down innovation. The patent system was intended to promote innovation, not make litigaters rich.
  I think most of the energy spent ranting against proprietary software should be redirected at the sad state of patent law, or we'll all suffer.

  Posted by: johnreynolds on October 07, 2004 at 08:48 AM

• I feel rather ambivilant about the issue. See my past comments for a reference point.

  In general I think it would be nice for Sun to open the source, but I don

  Posted by: duanegran on October 07, 2004 at 09:46 AM

• here here!

  well put.

  personally, i feel we, collectively have bigger challanges and opportunities that lay ahead (think secure pervassive network computing) then getting mired in the details. i wish a bit of time was spent looking at the "half full" part of the glass, or "java cup" vs wringing one's hands over the details. i mean, in comparison, the java community, assets, opportunities are significantly successful. let's continue to build on this succes.

  btw, you made my day with your candid entry which i believe many share ... they just happen to be the silent majority, or so i suspect.

  rock on.

  Posted by: gonzo on October 07, 2004 at 09:51 AM

• I

  Posted by: rdale on October 07, 2004 at 12:11 PM

• In principle, I have to agree with you. Regardless of what RMS says, software belongs to whoever created it (or whoever licensed it, or paid the salary of the person who created it), and the community doesn't have the right to demand it to be open-sourced.

  However, I still think that it would be in everyone's interest to open-source the Java codebase. Why? So that it can be ported to more platforms. OS X still doesn't have a Tiger release; Linux on PPC doesn't have anything newer than 1.3 (!!!); BSD only has what runs under the Linux emulator; Haiku has currently no Java support. If Java were open-source, it wouldn't have to be re-written from scratch for each platform.

  Yet, I do not think it should be open-sourced because it "belongs to us", nor do I "think negatively" of Sun for keeping Java closed-source. I simply think that an open-source Java could bring us closer to "write once, run anywhere", which is in our interest, and which I think is in Sun's interest, as well.

  But, yes, it is Sun's decision. But that doesn't prevent us from making a little noise. :-)

  Posted by: afishionado on October 08, 2004 at 10:14 AM

• I agree that the majority of developers silently just want tools that work ... consistently on all platforms with specific standards -- otherwise what's the point?

  As long as Sun provides non-prohibitive licenses to those who wish to implement on different platforms, then I see no need for "open-source". Allow porting of it to any platform that wants it -- as long as it complies 100% to the spec ... but allowing branches in the community is the last thing we need.

  For 3rd party libraries that's ideal, but not for the platform upon which those libaries run. It's hard enough getting the right version of Java, let alone brand/implementation/whatever ...

  Thanks Eitan for a great entry.

  Ben

  Posted by: benjc on October 08, 2004 at 10:20 AM

• re

  
  codebase. Why? So that it can be ported to more platforms. OS X still doesn't have a Tiger release; Linux on PPC doesn't have anything newer than 1.3 (!!!); BSD only has what runs under the Linux emulator; Haiku has currently no Java support. If Java were open-source, it wouldn't have to be re-written from scratch for each platform.

  
  has anyone interested in doing any of the above, or more, initiated a discussion to open up ideas on how said compontents can be added to the java process? i sincerely can't believe such efforts will be ignored.

  Posted by: gonzo on October 08, 2004 at 10:30 AM

• I think that open source has taught us better ways to *develop* software, but it hasn't delivered a really good performance as a business model. The quality and quantity of open source software never ceases to amaze me. The fact that many developers created these excellent products for free also never ceases to amaze me.

  Posted by: wallyflint on October 08, 2004 at 11:10 AM

• Java is open source. Last I checked the source code was available to anybody who agrees to the contract laid out by Sun Microsystems. Sun has been very generous with the Java programming language. If Sun gave up the rights to Java, that would be the worst business decision ever made. Java is today what it is because Sun Microsystems freely shared Java with the world. Sun has maintained the freedom, ownership, and platform stability, building the value and longevity of Java to make it what it is today. Sun's leadership with the Java programming language is a good example of how an open source project can be successful. Thank You Sun! Aaron

  Posted by: aschiffman on October 08, 2004 at 01:19 PM

• "Java is open source. Last I checked the source code was available to anybody who agrees to the contract laid out by Sun Microsystems."

  Open Source doesn't just mean that the source is available. It also implies a license which allows the user to modify and redistribute that source. Open Source is a class of license, not a term to describe the source being available.

  "If Sun gave up the rights to Java, that would be the worst business decision ever made."
  Nobody is asking Sun to give up the rights to Java. Open Source does not automatically imply giving up rights. This has been explained numerous times already.
  

  Posted by: philwebster on October 09, 2004 at 02:17 AM

• Suns property?

  Well; yes; Its Suns copyright.. But who coded it? Look at all the new features in Tiger and tell me who actually wrote the code. Were they Sun engineers?

  Generics isn't, java.util.concurrent sure isn't. Which packages/classes are?

  I'm pretty sure you miss very important points, and ones you learned about them please speak up and let us know why you still think Sun should be the only one being able to fix bugs.

  Posted by: zander on October 09, 2004 at 06:22 AM

• I first encountered the term Open Source in 1994, when I started using Linux. At the time Open Source was a Computer Program or Operating System for which the source code was publicly available. This was important because at the time a big push for open source was being made by developer's all over, mainly so they could write hardware drivers on new Operating Systems like Linux. If a developer wanted to write a driver they needed to ask individual hardware vendors for access to their source code. It was a big pain. The other major open source effort I recall was by FSF (Free Software Foundation). Now days its often assumed Open Source refers to GNU type licenses, mostly because developers are so used to seeing GNU in Linux and other GNU based code. Here is the most accurate definition I found, and it clarifies Sun's Java code is Open Source, because it is publicly available source code. The inherit philosophy of open source licenses like GNU is the freedom of a distributed community of programmers to modify and improve the code.

  Definition:

  Computer programs or operating systems for which the source code is publicly available are referred to as open-source software. Inherent in the open source philosophy is the freedom of a distributed community of programmers to modify and improve the code. The most widely known example of open-source software is the Linux operating system.

  Sun coded Java, and those features you are referring to are third party contributions. To clarify those third party packages that do have bug fixes can be upgraded by packaging the latest Jars in your Classpath. Sun design's its Classloaders to handle this exact scenerio.

  Thanks,

  Aaron

  Posted by: aschiffman on October 12, 2004 at 12:34 AM

• Stupid Questions 16: What's the Difference Between Wildcard Generics and no Genericsty2

  Posted by: 3ufblogg on July 17, 2007 at 02:09 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.