In reference to Sun's OpenJDK being under GPL, Mark Wielaard said :
And the GPL acts like a patent shield between all parties.
You sure, Mark? It's possible to put yourself back in patent jeopardy through derivative works. Sun didn't open their Java-related patent portfolio - they just implicitly licensed it to a single, specific codebase, right?
For reasons unknown (ok, I think I actually know...) Sun has a lot of trouble with their open source messaging, yet they have a brilliant marketing organization. I know some of their marketeers, and I respect them highly. They are dedicated and creative (remember the Duke condom?) and do some really great things - for example, Java has been very well marketed, and I just love JavaOne, in part because of the polish and cohesion of the marketing message each year. It's very well done.
However, there's a really bent and funny side to Sun marketing (remember the Duke condom?) as evidenced by these : #1 and #4. I had seen #1 before as an internal video, and especially as an Intel employee, I had to laugh.
Update - I see that Simon has a blog entry about them, with more links. Go see. Very funny.
So I was reading how SFLC might modify the GPLv3 in response to the MSFT/NOVL deal.
If Linux remains under GPLv2, how does this help?
(I have no idea why this kind of hyperbole bugs me like it does, but it does. Sun didn't "open Java".)
Putting that aside, it's nice to see Red Hat realize that the "Mono Trap" has always been worse than the "Java Trap" ever was. And now, coupled with Sun's action eliminating the "Java Trap" (if you believe there was one...) and Microsoft's action which put the world on notice, the difference is simply clearer.
I see NOVL's faustian pact with MSFT as simply great for Java - in one fell swoop, the battle lines have been redrawn, with Java as the rallying point. The Java ecosystem is a big tent - big enough and robust enough to have room for everyone, free software, open source software and proprietary software. Welcome, Red Hat :)
I had a brief post last week admitting I use Eclipse. Here's what I need - I need to work both in Java and C++/C. I don't have to compile the C/C++, just be able to work with the code, because Harmony only builds on Windows and Linux, but I prefer to work on the Mac. Unlike IDEA, NetBeans does claim to support C/C++, so I thought it might be nice to give NetBeans a fair shake. So here goes.
Well, it downloaded and installed ok. Looks good, v5.5, very pretty. There's a Sun logo at the bottom, which is weird, but maybe they forgot to take that out of the Forte contribution. I'll post a bug report. (Can you imagine the hyperventilation if there was an IBM logo in Eclipse?)
First thing I want to do is install the C++ support. I have no clue what to do. I find the Module manager under the Tools menu. Slick. An update button at the bottom takes me to a list of sites to check which takes me to a list of things to add. Very nice. Clean and clear. But I can't find C++/C. Maybe NetBeans can't install some things "hot". No biggie, I'll check the website.
Website. Wander around (I like the new site btw...), and find it easily on the products page. The section notes it's for "a variety of platforms including Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Solaris Operating Systems." Oh, please don't let it be that NetBeans doesn't understand the difference between "including" and "only"... yep. No OS X Support.
Why? Why? Why? Is C++ code harder to parse and syntax color in Java on a Mac than it is on Windows? A significant percentage of the Java developers I know work on Macs. I know that C/C++ is a niche, but why make OS X a second class citizen? It's no more niche that CLDC, CDC, or Glassfish. I wouldn't mind if I had limited features because is was a Mac (heck, I'm used to that), but not working at all? Hm. I wonder if this is just some sillyness on the website. I'm going to download for Linux and try that... Nope. The .bin for linux when run on OS X doesn't think a JDK is installed.
Never mind. I'll keep trying on Linux....
At the Sun announcement of their open source java project, "OpenJDK", Jonathan Schwartz spoke directly to some of the open source Java communities out there - GCJ, GNU Classpath, Kaffe. As Mark Wielaard noted, that "is a 40 second clip that I think captures the spirit of the event.".
I hope that doesn't completely capture the spirit of the event. Did he forgot a few projects? I don't really remember... No matter. There's always opportunities to build bridges and collaborate.
(Maybe he can open the doors to the Walled Garden and check...)
"My name is geir, and I use Eclipse"
I hate to admit it. I love IDEA. IDEA is so elegant, so thought out, so polished, so coherent. Eclipse is so... 'extensible'. But I need C and C++, and Eclipse does deliver that. I know that Netbeans has it as well, but I just couldn't get Netbeans to do the simplest thing... build a project around an existing one. I'll have to try again, I guess.
RedHat says 'Java is now open'.
Statements like this are confusing to people. It's really a cool thing that Sun did, releasing their implementation of Java under the GPL but lets be clear - the structure of the Java ecosystem is the same as it was before Sun announced OpenJDK. Java is still governed by the JCP. Maybe this will help us accelerate the opening of the JCP...
Might it have been better if Nat and Miguel realized this before they made the deal and took the check?
Many people swear by the "Airborne Formula" product, some kind of vitamin supplement that people claim fixes oncoming colds and such. I'll admit I'm skeptical, but I am using it at the suggestion of friends and family.
But what struck me as interesting was the package, which claims as a major selling point that it was "Created by a second grade school teacher". Huh? Maybe that school teacher uses teaching materials created by a subway conductor or fireman?
Sun has been very gracious and invited me to their announcement event.
|
Thanks to Simon, Ray, Rich and Tom for making that happen.
More pics :
|
Well, today's the day. The embargo ended last night at 12:00am eastern, and people have been talking about Sun's decision to use the GPLv2 (+exception for SE) for Java SE, ME and even Glassfish, which will apparently persist under the CDDL as well.
This is a good thing - it's more open source Java. I'm not a huge fan of the GPL myself, but that's ok. Sun has it's reasons and it's Sun's IP to license.
Sun was very gracious and has invited me to their announcement event today, and the press discussion afterwards. I'm very thankful that they did that. I just wish they held it in .... New York ... :) so that I didn't have to do JFK<->SFO twice in one week. Maybe next time :)
People are asking what this means for Apache Harmony. I don't think that it will change our day-to-day life much in the project. We have the same goals, the same problem to solve, the same work to get done. As I've noted elsewhere, Apache and Sun have different communities, with different licenses, different conditions for contribution and different governance models. Apache projects are a collection of peers, and each of us our own reasons for participating. I believe that this good news today from Sun doesn't change what we'll be doing - it just means even more open source Java, choices for users and contributors, and that's a good thing.
Note : As before my ramblings about Sun and GPL for their implementation of Java SE is pure speculation. I have no official information from Sun. As a matter of fact, Sun employees continue to be amazingly tight-lipped about this. Also, as the last post proves, I'm not a lawyer or have any legal training, so anything you read here could be wrong...
In my last post, I clearly didn't get it right, so I'm writing a new post rather than bury the "whoops, sorry" in the old one. (Given no one reads this anyway, it doesn't really matter, but I like to be honest with myself, anyway).
By placing under the GPL, a lawyer friend reminded me that Sun is implicitly granting patent rights to users of the code. Therefore, they do lose the ability to rattle the patent sabre for compatibility. However, because Sun will be creating code that is compatible with the specification - it is the reference implementation, after all - I'm betting that Sun isn't worried about that.
Further, as with any open source codebase under any license with explicit or implicit patent grant that I'm aware of, 'significant' modification of the work moves the modifier back into patent jeopardy if such exists, so Sun's putting the code under the GPL doesn't create compatibility risk any more than there is in the ecosystem today. (And I'll remind anyone reading that I believe the risk is very low - the market isn't interested in incompatible Java....)
Finally, I'll note as I have before, Sun placing this code under the GPL is really a NOOP if we want it to be - I'm guessing we'll still be able to get the tested binaries from Sun under the same licenses through which they are available now, and given their preservation of complete copyright, you can also license the full codebase under whatever terms you are willing to pay for. (I still think that's a mistake for community reasons, but Sun has different community goals than Apache Harmony does...)
In the end, this is simply creates more Java implementations under open source licenses. That's simply a Good Thing(tm).
Note : All of my ramblings about Sun and GPL for their implementation of Java SE is pure speculation. I have no confirmed information from Sun. As a matter of fact, Sun employees are amazingly tight-lipped about this. I suspect they've been threatened with banishment to "solaris security" if they say anything... Also, I'm not a lawyer or have any legal training, so anything you read here could be wrong...
Sun choosing the GPL for it's implementation of Java SE is interesting for a number of reasons, the most prominent is patents. GPL v2 has no explicit patent license - that means that you can release software under the GPL v2 for which you hold software patents, and there's no requirement that said patents are granted to the recipient of the software. More modern licenses, like the Apache License do have terms like this, which work to prevent patent owners from creating patent traps with source donations to open source.
One of the interesting aspects of the Java ecosystem is that when you create an independent implementation of a spec, you receive all "necessary IP" (whatever that means) from all members of the expert group via the spec lead when you pass the TCK, the test kit that certifies that your implementation is compatible with the spec. This is useful, as it takes away uncertainty about patent risk from the members of the expert group, so you can't use the JCP to create patent traps in the Java ecosystem.
So what happens if Sun uses the GPL for their implementation of Java SE? They have stated that they will use an OSI-approved license, which means GPLv2 rather than a one-off they create themselves. GPLv2 has no language that gives a patent license to recipients. There is language in the preamble that indicate it was the intent of the GPL authors to have patent licensing, but as far as I can tell, it's not there. Therefore, Sun maintains the ability to use patents to enforce compatibility for any implementation based on the GPL-ed source base. This in itself isn't very interesting, other than it's a supporting point to why they'll chose the GPL - they don't lose their patent weapon.
But what happens going forward? The GPL v2 states that unless the applicable version of the GPL is specified, you can choose any version of the GPL as defining the terms under which you receive the license. What happens then when GPL v3 is done? As of draft 2, it has explicit patent grant language in the form of a covenant not to assert :
You receive the Program with a covenant from each author and conveyor of the Program, and of any material, conveyed under this License, on which the Program is based, that the covenanting party will not assert (or cause others to assert) any of the party's essential patent claims in the material that the party conveyed, against you, arising from your exercise of rights under this License.
Will Sun restrict scope to v2?
I muttered about Sun using the GPL for their OSS efforts a while ago, and there has been very little information about it in public, until now, and the whole industry is buzzing.
Jonathan Schwartz mentioned CDDL at the end of October, but that's been the only thing out there, and that was clearly an unscripted moment.
CRN posted this piece on Sun using the GPL, and - well - this supports what has been my bet for some time now.
Why? Because I think I understand now what Sun wants to achieve - basically, a 'walled garden' for its customers and partners, where they can create a stronger relationship, a participatory relationship, with those that still wish to be dependent on Sun for things like tested binaries, and such.
In retrospect, it's an easy conclusion to come to. Safe money bets that Sun will retain the same IP model they use for Glassfish and OpenSolaris, namely require that Sun is granted joint copyright ownership of any contribution, with the result that Sun will have a complete copyright and thus will be able to relicense to others under commercial terms. This creates a tilted "playing field" in Sun's favor, which I think is a mistake. It will discourage collaboration by Sun's licensee-competitors, which is a wonderful use for open source. There are countless examples of it, such as linux, httpd, tomcat, etc - but it relies on an equality in the ecosystem that Sun's model doesn't support. The GPL is the only logical license that supports this level of control. Other licenses, such as the BSD, MIT, CDDL, Mozilla, etc allow a recipient to freely augment or replace pieces and license those changes under their own license. That removes the control point that GPL gives Sun.
Sun's business model these days is 'open access and trial, come back for support and service'. So they will make things accessible for people to read, review, run, inspect, etc. The GPL is a great vehicle for this - it lets them retain control over who can make a proprietary derivative work, yet allow people to read and inspect it under a license that is "blessed" by the OSI.
So, it's a logical move in support of the "walled garden", one that fits what Sun appears to be doing as their global business model. It's a proven model, as demonstrated by MySQL, so it will probably work out for them. It does raise some interesting questions though, but that's for another blog....
James Gosling : "we've been very close to being open source for a very long time"
And in Apache Harmony, we're getting close to being compatible... but we're still not.
Update : there was also this statement : "We expect that people who care about reliability and compatibility with the spec will use our version." Why? Anyone who passes the TCK is compatible, right?
I was re-reading the press release for the MSFT and NOVL deal. There was a positive quote from Steve Mills, head of the Software Group at IBM. Why would IBM be for this? The quote is only about ODF, but as I understand the deal, only NOVL's customers get any benefits if using ODF, and the rest of the industry has been more or less put on notice that they aren't. This seems like it would split the community.
Was Steve punk'd?
I've just heard that one of my heros, Dr. Graham Hamilton, has left Sun.
Graham was the Sun rep on the JCP EC, which is how I met him. A Sun Fellow and a VP, he was an uncompromising advocate of Java compatibility who simply didn't understand that my advocacy of open source was aligned with the "compatibility promise". Needless to say, we didn't see eye to eye.
That said, this is a significant loss for Sun, and the Java ecosystem as a whole. I'm proud to say that I've worked with Dr. Hamilton, and hope to do so again in the future.
Simon had a good post on the weird Microsoft deal with Novell. I don't pay attention to either of these two companies much - I spend my time on Sun "Kremlinology" - but it is a weird one, one with serious reverberations in open source, something I do pay attention to.
I wonder what this means for Java, especially on Linux. Open source Java SE is a subject close to my heart, and I wonder what this "get out of jail free" card for Novell customers that run Mono as their managed runtime will mean in the long term. As Simon noted, there appears to be a bit of 'vendor lock-in' - not only will you have technology switching costs, but you may have a legal bill as well.
This certainly will keep things interesting for a while.
Hard to imagine what the joint offering would be.... increased uptime running Windows on top of LInux via virtualization?
Update : (thanks to Simon for the link) http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061102-041207-2995r
How CNET got to this from this just boggles the mind.
In the PR, they said they chose the Apache License and the Apache model of open project governance. This is good news - it's a good license and a good model that provides a level playing field for all involved. They didn't say they were doing it at Apache.
P.S. The Apache Harmony project was started by individuals of the Apache Software Foundation...
