John D. Mitchell's Blog

Sun says no decision on open-sourcing Java

Well, the earlier blather about the potential of open-sourcing Java seems to be squashed by this report.

The biggest thing, IMHO, is Gosling's quote implying that there is a serious discussion about this going on inside Sun.

Comments

• It makes a lot of sense for Sun to open source the Java Libraries and Solaris Kernel
  It makes a lot of sense for Sun to open source the Java Libraries and Solaris Kernel

  Posted by: nzheretic on June 05, 2004 at 07:40 PM

• Well, it's Sun's code, they can do as they wish
  I assume that Sun knows best what's good for them. I wish the pro-liberalization forces at Sun best of luck.

  Meanwhile, I'll keep hacking on Kaffe and Classpath.

  cheers,
  dalibor topic

  Boring disclaimer that's required per this site's Terms of Pariticipation:
  Copyright Claimed: Copyright (c) 2004 Dalibor Topic. All Rights Reserved.
  

  Posted by: robilad on June 06, 2004 at 05:37 AM

• Well, it's Sun's code, they can do as they wish
  FYI You are not required to post the copyright notice unless you wish to retain copy rights to your own post. For example, in this post of yours that encourages Sun to give up rights to their software, you certainly wouldn't be required to insist on keeping the rights to your post encouraging them to do so. You are welcome to but item 13 in the terms of use does not need to be invoked in each post. If you've noticed, our blogs are now under creative commons and fair use covers most cases that people are interested in.
  D

  Posted by: daniel on June 06, 2004 at 06:14 AM

• Well, it's Sun's code, they can do as they wish
  quoting from the 'Terms of Participation':

  "3. You agree that all software, related materials, technical materials, information and/or content of any sort submitted by you to this web site ("Submissions") may be made available on this web site (at the Hosts' sole discretion) under the web site Terms of Participation."

  "13. You must provide a "Copyright Notice" applicable to each Submission you make in the following format at the time that you make a Submission:

  Copyright Claimed: Copyright (c) [Year] [Copyright Owner]. All Rights Reserved.

  The "Year" is the year of first publication of that particular version of the Submission."

  Sounds to me like any sort of information I provide is a submission, and needs a copyright notice *each time* I make a submission. I couldn't find a mention of 'creative commons' in the 'Terms of Participation'. Would you be sop kind to provide me with a reference?

  thanks,
  dalibor topic

  Boring disclaimer that's required per this site's Terms of Pariticipation:
  Copyright Claimed: Copyright (c) 2004 Dalibor Topic. All Rights Reserved.

  Posted by: robilad on June 06, 2004 at 01:43 PM

• Well, it's Sun's code, they can do as they wish
  Okay, found the creative commons bit. It's not in the Terms of Participation, it's in the left corner of the weblog.

  thanks,
  dalibor topic

  p.s. i'll be leaving out the boring disclaimers for now, but I still find the terms of participation to me poorly worded in that area. :)

  Posted by: robilad on June 06, 2004 at 01:59 PM

• too soon release control of java
  if sun releases too much control of java wouldn't we expect microsoft to introduce the anti compadability measures that it previously had.

  One of the best features of java is it cross-platform ability. I don't think that would last long if java totally open.

  but then open source does not mean un-restricted or even free. So what kind of open source are we talking about with java?

  
  

  Posted by: radix_zero on June 07, 2004 at 07:05 AM

• "open source" is vague and meaningless
  It's time to clear up the definition. Here's an example:

  UserA: But Java is open - look:
  http://wwws.sun.com/software/communitysource/j2se/java2/download.html

  UserB: OK, the source to Java is obviously open (anyone can get it) but I want to submit bug fixes and patches and there is no open process to do that.

  UserA: Hmm, ok, the bugreport tool doesn't cut it. I agree - but that doesn't mean Java isn't open source, it means Sun's process to work with the Java community is deficient in this area. Why not participate in the open dialog Sun is having at Java.net to help fix this?

  Sun seems the most confused about this as they keep repeating they "won't open source Java". Yet, they provide the entire source for anyone to view.

  IMHO Sun - and the folks that recommend Sun be more "open" need to fix up the terminology so we're all on the same page discussing the same thing. Since "open source" is defined to mean various things to various folks it's too ambiguous to mean anything to anybody anymore.

  My suggestion is to never use the term "open source" and always list specific license requirements. Until we come up with a new word or phrase that is explicitly defined it's the only way I see us moving forward with meaningful conversation.

  Posted by: markswanson on June 07, 2004 at 08:13 AM

• "open source" is vague and meaningless
  There is a definition of the term "open source" from OSI, and Sun's license terms for JDK and JRE sources have so far failed to meet the criteria to be called open source(TM) accoding to that definition.

  Calling Sun's current license for the JDK source open source(TM) is like calling Microsoft's J++ Java(TM). :)

  cheers,
  dalibor topic

  Posted by: robilad on June 07, 2004 at 10:28 AM

• "open source" is vague and meaningless
  Ok So Please inform us what needs to change in the SCSL in order to make it "open source" in your eyes. I thought in order for it to be 'open source' I simply need to be able to get the source (which I can). Or is that "Software Livre"?

  So what your saying is that even though anyone can get the source, that's not good enough, that there must be something else. What, pray tell, would that be?

  I agree with markswanson above, the term "opensource" is too vague. Even on /. it evokes all sorts of flames and disagreements (BSD is better than GPL, QPL isn't really opensource - oh wait yes it is- blah blah blah). Unfortunately "open source" has grown to mean so much more than just open source code, that no can really agree what it means.

  Do I like the SCSL? No, because it currently casues issues with things like Jini. I thyink it needs to change as well. But again, as markswanson , I don;t think it really has much to do with getting at the source code.

  M

  Posted by: johnnycannuk on June 07, 2004 at 11:13 AM

• "open source" is vague and meaningless
  Thanks for the pointer to a link that tries to define this. I did a google and came up with:
  http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

  It's good that someone is trying to define this. I find it funny that after years of questioning (and watch others question), "why do you say Java isn't open when the source has been opened (you can read it)?" you're the first to actually provide some direction to an effort to provide clarity.

  I also do find it strange that the osi folks chose (hijacked is more like it) the term "open source" because pre-1997 I believe _everyone_ thought the phrase "open up the code" meant to make the code available so the public could read it.

  I do like the attempt at trying to nail it down, but based on the comments and articles I've read over the years I feel the name "open source" is more a point of confusion than a source of clarity.

  Cheers.
  

  Posted by: markswanson on June 07, 2004 at 11:15 AM

• "open source" is vague and meaningless
  According to http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/intro.html the term was coined in 1997. I'd recommend http://perens.com/Articles/OSD.html for the overview of how the term came into being from the author of the definition.

  Let me quote from http://groups.google.de/groups?q=%22open+source%22+1996&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Ubkpb.4195%24qh2.1165%40newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net&rnum=3

  ">> There was no use of the phrase "open source" regarding software prior to
  >> the coinage of the phrase by Burce Perens. There have been numerous
  >> attempts *since* to blur the definition. Many of these trace to
  >> Microsoft or allied parties. Not all, but many.
  >
  > I don't know any examples of these attempts offhand, but I'd bet
  > you're right.

  Search Google Groups, advanced tools, by date.

  Believe I'm right, if you wish. But better: go ahead and verify.

  http://tinyurl.com/tb8j
  Google Groups, search for "Open Source", 12 May, 1981 - 31 Dec, 1996

  There are a very few references to "open source code" (and none for
  "open source software" prior to 1997 -- fewer than 90 in all of Usenet:

  http://tinyurl.com/tb9f

  Other searches for "open source" are dominated by intelligence
  references, as indicated previously.

  
  Compared to over 22,000 for "open source code" or "open source software"
  from 1997 to 2000.

  http://tinyurl.com/tb9e

  
  > Nonetheless, it is stupid to guess that "misuses" of the term "open
  > source" (i.e., uses different than Perens) are due, even indirectly,
  > to FUD.

  To the contrary: it's naive to assume they're not."

  Judging by the numbers, I think it's fair to say that OSI has not hijacked the term 'open source' but actually given it a precise meaning in context of software.

  There has been some significant effort later from various sides to muddy the waters after the term 'open source' became commonly used to declare various software as open source that didn't meet the criteria of DFSG and the OSD. There were marketing efforts like 'shared source', 'community source' or 'hybrid source', that tried to capture some of the moment and buzz that was attached to 'open source' and ride on that. Most of them failed, as far as I can tell.

  Posted by: robilad on June 07, 2004 at 12:26 PM

• "open source" is vague and meaningless
  Changing the SCSL to make it open source according to the definition of the word would be rather easy: drop all the clauses that don't meet the OSD.

  Going through the definition one by one with the SCSL for the JDK 1.4 release:

  * Free Redistribution:

  Nope.

  * Source Code

  Doesn't allow free redistribution, so redistribution in source code fails, too.

  * Derived Works

  Nope. Very limited.

  * Integrity of The Author's Source Code

  Doesn't allow free distribution of separate modifications either.

  * No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

  I guess it passes that one, yay!

  * No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

  Nope. Explicitely limits fields of endeavor to research, commercial use, or internal use.

  * Distribution of License

  Nope. The TCK license comes with what's effectively a NDA.

  * License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

  I guess it passes that one, yay!

  * License Must Not Restrict Other Software

  Nope. Once you've agreed to SCSL, you can't distribute non-compliant software. So you couldn't redistribute kaffe, gcj, or even more up-to-date versions of Xerces if they break tests in the TCK.

  * License Must Be Technology-Neutral

  Nope. It's a click-wrap license. It even has a pointless [ACCEPT] [REJECT] at the bottom

  Total: 2 out of 10. Probably slightly more open source than Microsoft Windows 95 EULA :)

  "Free Software" (Software Livre) is a different, stricter term then 'open source'. Free Sowftare is defined in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html .

  The Q Public License Version 1.0 is open source. See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/qtpl.php

  cheers,
  dalibor topic

  Posted by: robilad on June 07, 2004 at 12:50 PM

• "open source" is vague and meaningless
  Good response. Some issues:

  >According to >http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/intro.html >the term was coined in 1997.
  
  I already mentioned 1997 in a previous post. No need to mention it again...

  > Let me quote from >http://groups.google.de/groups?q=%22open+source%22+1996&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Ubkpb.4195%24qh2.1165%40newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net&rnum=3
  
  ">> There was no use of the phrase "open source" regarding software prior to
  >> the coinage of the phrase by Burce Perens. There have been numerous
  >> attempts *since* to blur the definition. Many of these trace to
  >> Microsoft or allied parties. Not all, but many.

  I think it's irrelevant. I believe "open" is/was universally understood as the opposite of "closed"/proprietary. For all of the best intentions the definition of the phrase "open source" has failed to change the root meaning of "open" source and has mostly blurred the definition to the point of being meaningless.

  I can agree to disagree on this.

  Cheers.
  

  Posted by: markswanson on June 07, 2004 at 01:31 PM

• No such thing as 'Software Livre'
  Don't you mean 'Software Libre'? ;-)
  

  Posted by: philwebster on June 09, 2004 at 04:02 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.