Fabrizio Giudici's Blog

About open licensing of Java SE

I'm opening a small parenthesis in my thematic sequence of blog entries to talk about something I've just read on the Dr. Dobb's Portal. Looks like Sun is going to use GPL for the upcoming open source licensing of Java Standard Edition. I'm not going to discuss if it's the "best" license (personally I don't like it, but I understand that the choice has some strong rationale), but rather which is the impact for developers and architects.

In facts, GPL is not compatibile with a number of other popular licenses (e.g. Apache License 2) - the consequence, which I bet is not known by a lot of developers and architects - is that you can't mix libraries or frameworks with incompatible licenses.

So, what about mixing the new GPL Java SE with an Apache library? Common sense would suggest that as this choice has been clearly planned, in most cases there will be no issues. But am I right?

I'm sure that Sun is already doing it, but it's important that now they work on a good communication strategy to let us know all the implications of this move (also because I'm sure that most of architects and developers would like to spend just a few time on legal issues by learning from authoritative sources). In this way everybody will benefit from the open sourcing of Java, at the same time minimizing any negative impact.

Comments

• WOW GPL? Really? I mean thats the license I would want but I still don't believe it. Not until I have a copy of the sources with GPL headers. This will mean gcj will have a MUCH easier time compiling Java to native code.

  Posted by: aberrant on November 08, 2006 at 05:32 AM

• That's what happens when you are uninformed ... GPL ver.3 WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE APACHE LICENSE.
  In fact, that's a major feature of GPL3 ... and I don't think SUN is stupid enough to license Java under an older version.

  Posted by: bonefry on November 08, 2006 at 09:08 AM

• Im not following the new GPL3 license too closely, but if Java was offered via GPL and vs. 3 isn't done yet... ? Are people releasing their source today under a license that is in flux?

  leouser

  Posted by: leouser on November 08, 2006 at 09:37 AM

• leouser: they could just use the 'GPLv2 or any later version' wording, and be able to use v3 once its out directly.

  Posted by: robilad on November 08, 2006 at 09:52 AM

• Interesting, though Im not sure how that would work in practice. It seems very open ended. Does that mean that the user would decide which GPL version his Java would be under?

  leouser

  Posted by: leouser on November 08, 2006 at 09:59 AM

• fwiw, GPLv3 should be ready in Q1 2007, and the Java source code should be fully available in that time frame as well, as far as I recall reading on the web, so releasing Java under GPLv3 could be plausible.

  Otoh, they are planning to release the VM and the compiler first, and those parts are not likely to contain any code not owned by Sun. So GPL-incompatibiity, if the GPL rumour actually is true, would not be an issue for that batch of code.

  If the rumour is true, it'd be excellent news.

  Posted by: robilad on November 08, 2006 at 10:03 AM

• Given that there is no 'later' version of the GPL yet, the user would not actually have a choice in the matter for the next couple of months, and Sun could switch following code releases to GPLv3 or later. ;)

  If they've actually gone the GPL route, I'm sure they've got the details worked out, since they are actively participating in the GPLv3 process. I'd guess there will be some sort of FAQ to go with whatever licensing choice they make, once it's actually made, as that worked really well with the DLJ.

  Posted by: robilad on November 08, 2006 at 10:09 AM

• true, but there would still be a group of people out there that would be using the code under a "GPL v2 or later" when the event transpires(assuming that there would be code released before that). Probably nothing too big of a deal, though I have to ask: are GPL v2 and v3 compatible?

  leouser

  Posted by: leouser on November 08, 2006 at 10:21 AM

• getting sorta off topic, but anyway ... re gplv2/v3 compatibility: at this point in the drafting process, it's hard to tell. The current draft isn't, but people from the Linux kernel community care deeply to make sure that's the case, and the FSF has shown in the drafting process that they are willing to listen and make changes.

  Posted by: robilad on November 08, 2006 at 11:32 AM

• The ongoing discussion confirms the points I've made in my blog entry: there is not good information around. The GPL stuff is still a rumor, but DDJ is a very reputable source. We don't know which GPL version will be used; I have some very reputable sources who say that there are strong issues between ASF and GPL v3. As an architect I can't take strategic decisions about a project by using (contradictory) information I've read on a blog. I need some authoritative statement as a reference. So I hope together with robilad that some sort of FAQ will be soon published.

  Posted by: fabriziogiudici on November 08, 2006 at 12:11 PM

• I don't see how you couldn't have a FAQ for this. Just watching the forum here about Open Sourcing Java Ive seen a wide variety of views as to what the meaning/restrictions of the GPL are. You don't want Open Source Java to flop because a segment(maybe large) can't come to a common understanding of the licenses meaning.

  maybe there's going to be a need for an Open Java hotline(joke),

  leouser

  Posted by: leouser on November 08, 2006 at 12:35 PM

• As far as GPLv3 and Apache compatibility goes, in The Apache Software Foundation
  Board of Directors Meeting Minutes from May 24, 2006, the ASF VP of Legal Affairs, Cliff Schmidt said:

  "GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: After a close review of the first draft
  of GPLv3, I brought up potential incompatibility issues
  with the Apache License to the GPLv3 discussion committee
  that I serve on. The FSF's counsel hopes these issues
  can be addressed in the next draft. As I've said before,
  both the FSF and the SFLC continue to be unwavering in
  their dedication to ensure GPLv3 is compatible with Apache
  License v2."

  So it'd seem to me that compatibility between these two licenses is something that's desired, and will happen. If you have sources more reputable than ASF's VP of legal affairs, who's actually doing the work on the GPLv3 committee, I'd be interested who they are. ;)

  Posted by: robilad on November 08, 2006 at 12:55 PM

• robilad, my sources told me that GPLv3 and ASF are (presently) incompatible, and you're confirming that they are ;-)

  Future is not present and people can't take tough decisions basing on what _could_ happen in future. I appreciate the efforts of ASF and FSF to address issues, but they started working on incompatibilities a lot of years ago (I don't think GPLv1,2 and ASF were intentionally made incompatible) but up to now this effort didn't produce a result.

  Posted by: fabriziogiudici on November 08, 2006 at 01:11 PM

• Given that there is no GPLv3 yet, I would not base my decisions on anonymous rumours about a license that does not exist yet. ;)

  GPLv1 and v2 predate the birth of the ASF by several years, nevermind its licenses, so they can't have been made deliberately incompatible.

  Posted by: robilad on November 08, 2006 at 01:17 PM

• Let's try to recap. Java could be released under GPL, and in a short time. GPL v3 will be completed not before March 2007. All of this is something concerning future, present development goes on undisturbed.

  But a new, possibly skeptical customer that is evaluating Java as a possible architectural choice for a long-lived project could be easily scared by all these rumors and lack of assertive statements. This is a problem, _now_ - and the architect should be able to give exhaustive answers, _now_.

  Posted by: fabriziogiudici on November 08, 2006 at 01:32 PM

• Well, what we have now is not going to go away.

  
  Sun's Software business product manager Laurie Wong just two days ago, talking to the Australian newspaper, said that "There will be open source and commercial licences". So, practically speaking, your licensing options as an architect/customer will be broadened to include an open source license, if that's what you need. If you are happy with the current licensing options, than another licensing option is not going to make more of a difference, than JIUL did.

  
  The commercial licenses are extremely unlikely to disappear, since a lot of companies really enjoy producing their own Java runtimes for their own markets, without having to disclose their code, and are happy licensees of the RI code bases.

  Posted by: robilad on November 08, 2006 at 04:16 PM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.