John D. Mitchell's Blog

JCK's New Bait-n-Switch Licensing

Sun's Graham Hamilton has just announced the release of the Java Compatibility Kit (JCK) for J2SE under a read-only license.

Whoopity do!

If, heaven forbid, one wants to actually use the JCK at all, you are required to either submit to the onerous SCSL (Sun Community Source License) or upcoming JDL (Java Development License). If you want to use it commercially, you have negotiate a commercial license with Sun (at least $50,000.00).

Geez, doesn't this remind you of Microsoft's incredibly lame "shared source" insanity?

As always, I'm a firm believer that, hey, it's Sun's property and they can do whatever they please with it but Sun's mealy-mouthed, half-assed, Janus-faced approach to "opening" up Java is, frankly, insulting. Sun: if you want to continue with your dictatorial control of Java, just be honest and say so but stop all of the weasely, self-righteous BS -- or return to your bold roots and get serious about truly opening Java up to the world.

Comments

• Well... it's not really bait and switch since Sun is very clear from the outset that the JCK license is read-only...

  So what is a read-only license good for? Since this is the source for the Java Compatibility Kit it's really just an augment to the specification. By letting us see the tests that a feature has to pass in order to be "blessed" we can get a better pitcure of how to use the feature in our own code...

  In other words, this offering really isn't designed for developers who are going to implement the features, it's designed for developers who are going to use the features.

  Posted by: johnreynolds on December 14, 2004 at 07:08 AM

• John,

  Interesting comments -- but be aware that some of us are pretty happy with Sun's cautious and thoughtful tenor as they gradually make Java more open while preserving, as Graham emphasized, compatibility.

  Some would perhaps prefer a thoughtless but rapid adoption of open-source, but please be tolerant of those with a more deliberate approach.

  Best,

  Ben

  Posted by: javaben on December 14, 2004 at 08:25 AM

• John Reynolds, thanks for the kind response. I do understand Sun's stated rationale for this read-only license. However, the fact is that the very purpose of source code is to be used. The read-only license prohibits use and the only way to get the right to use the JCK source code is to sign an onerously asymmetrical license agreement. Ugh.
  

  Posted by: johnm on December 14, 2004 at 10:21 AM

• Ben, thank you for a different perspective. Your statements seem to reflect a mistaken impression that somehow openness will erode Java's history of compatibility. As many of us have said (for years), there are certainly ways to retain such crucial underpinnings of Java while opening Java up to the world. Alas, I can certainly understand that impression given the inane stridency of so many of the F&OSS proponents along with the FUD from Sun "apologists". There is a way to balance.
  

  Posted by: johnm on December 14, 2004 at 10:29 AM

• OK, you say "there is a way to balence". I"d love to hear it - if it"s the same old "the market will address the compatibility issue", then, sadly, we must agree to disagree. The many, many incompatible versions of Linux stand in testament to the worrisome dangers of this approach.

  Posted by: driscoll on December 14, 2004 at 02:16 PM

• driscoll:

  
  Is Sun opened up the J2SE TCK and let everyone on the market evaluate everyone's compatiblity, the market would have a fair chance of identifying and sorting out incompatible implementations.

  It doesn't have that chance now, so Sun has to play the market regulator. That setup is by their choice, though, not because the market is too stupid to separate compatible implementations from incomatible ones, given the right tools.

  cheers,
  dalibor topic

  Posted by: robilad on December 14, 2004 at 07:03 PM

• Robliad says " let everyone on the market evaluate everyone's compatiblity"

  Any examples in competitive markets where that's worked? (Note: I said competitive markets.)

  Unix? C? Heck, COBOL or FORTRAN? Linux? Any markets? Any? Please, tell me one, I'd love to know.

  Remember, Perl, Python and others are not competitive markets with multiple vendors, so those don't count. They're single source suppliers.

  Posted by: driscoll on December 15, 2004 at 01:03 PM

• Ugh. Y'all are getting stuck in the conflation of the Java brand, Java implementations, and the control of what the definitions of each of those are. Given the desire to preserve the value of the Java brand's meaning of compatibility, it's quite reasonable to demand that anything wishing to use that brand to mark their implementation must conform to e.g., the JCK. The key is who controls the ability to specify what the JCK means -- and that who is Sun.

  Driscoll, your exclusion of e.g. Perl and Python because those are "single source suppliers" is false. (A) they are worked on by a number of people (though they are dominated by small groups). (B) Given their licenses, they can be e.g., forked. Thos are both kinds of market force. "Java" (or VisualBasic or SAP or...) can't because Sun (or MS or SAP or...) control what "Java" means and whether or not people can call something "Java".

  Posted by: johnm on December 15, 2004 at 01:16 PM

• JohnM: I dont buy the argument, and I still dont see any evidence. Perl and Python are single source suppliers, regardless of the number of coders working on them - they come from one place. The right to fork is irrelevant for this discussion until its exercised. There are no conflicting commercial interests. In every case where they are such as Linux, there is no compatibility.

  And no, Im not talking about the brand. Im not talking about control. Im talking about compatible implementations, branded or not, controlled or not. So - name a compatible marketplace that isnt single source supplier.

  P.S. Im not trying to be difficult. I just really, really want an example. I suspect there is one - I just dont know what it is. By your response, I suspect you cant think of one either.

  Posted by: driscoll on December 17, 2004 at 10:18 AM

• Bah. Of course the issue of control matters! How else are you going to decide what the definition of "compatible" means?
  

  Posted by: johnm on December 17, 2004 at 11:02 AM

• Ok, one last time: "let everyone on the market evaluate everyone's compatiblity".

  Please name a market where this works...

  Posted by: driscoll on December 17, 2004 at 11:14 AM

• Sigh. I did NOT make that comment. Please read what I actually wrote.

  Posted by: johnm on December 17, 2004 at 11:31 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.