Craig Box wrote:
Sun is not conning anyone. It's well understood the the DLJ license is the first step on a path that Sun intends to end with Java being released under an OSI complaint license. You would have to have your head in the sand to have missed this piece of news. OSI complaint doesn't mean good.
[..snip..]
I will continue to not use Sun's java and continue to support the gcj and gnu classpath developers.
But OSI compliant does, somewhat by definition, imply "open source". I'm a bit confused here - are you saying that if Sun's Java was 100% open sourced, you'd still rather use gcj?
Probably. It fulfills 100% of my current java needs.
If you are, thats fine:
} For an open source Java effort to succeed, it not only needs to match } the functionality of Sun's Java first, but it must offer functionality } that is not available anywhere if it wants to attract developers to } its core. Today there are probably two openings in this area. IKVM } which makes Java and .NET run side-by-side and GCJ which turns Java } code into native code.
(Miguel de Icaza, http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2005/May-11.html)
Not once have I said that GCJ is up to scratch in comparison to Sun's JVM. I dis say this though: "RedHat's development efforts with gcj and GNU classpaths is making very good progress. Now that JBoss is apart of RH, one can only see the open JVM will improve greatly." And I stand by my comments.
But for the people who want to use the most compliant Java implementation, which today by default is that of its inventor, this step takes them one big step closer to doing it easily, and one small step closer to doing it with a clear conscience.
Greeting this move with open arms, falling to your knees and thanking Sun is a joke.
To quote a relevant (and more recent) section from Miguel again:
} Now, on the other hand, everyone clamoring for Sun to open source Java } seems to be tacitly admitting that free software can not compete in } out-engineering a proprietary company if the proprietary company gives } their goods for free } } Beyond all the debate surrounding Sun's actions there is an } interesting debate that we should look at: can open source effectively } compete with proprietary software if the goods are given away for } free?
Depends in *how* they are given away, my best guess would be CDDL, which is incompatible with GPL like licenses.. should raise some nice debates
Mono development is fast and furious because there is no "$-free alternative". GCJ/Harmony/Kaffe/whatever -- well, you can scratch an itch, but there's always the Sun JVM, which is $-free, so development on competitors will always suffer.
Mono is a great effort, Miguel as really out done himself in that department. Full credit where due.
In this situation, the only winning move for the product is the open sourcing of the Sun JVM, or the development of the above alternatives, which do Java slightly differently.
Provided Sun does it and provided its compatible with existing licenses. Again, proof is in the pudding. I don't mean to sound negative, as Matt claims, but I am some what shocked by the attitude of shipping non-free non-oss is ok, because someday it *might* become completely oss..... Doesn't make sense to me. Michael