JBoss CEO Opposes Open-Source Java (CRN) [LWN.net]

JBoss CEO Opposes Open-Source Java (CRN)

Posted May 6, 2004 17:34 UTC (Thu) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link]

So appropre for current events, MySQL is another Bitkeeper pain. It's kind of a mind bender to hear the press releases about various open source projects only to find their development software is commercial. Finally when these projects are able to drive a wedge between them and the project originator or library owner they're angry as heck that someone has once again leveled the playing field by releasing something they believe to have had an exclusive lock on.

I know people have the right to earn money to put food on the table, but I have to ask the questions: Does success breed greed? At what point does success blind you to your own starting point? If these projects hadn't gotten a break, where would they be today?

JBoss CEO Opposes Open-Source Java (CRN)

Posted May 7, 2004 2:02 UTC (Fri) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

Hmmm I wonder where greed is defined:

A) Selling out enough to leave mom's basement
B) Selling out enough to eat more than Taco Bell and live out of mom's basement
C) Selling out enough to see mom once a month for dinner
D) Selling out for a $50,000 a year
E) Selling out for $500,000 a year
F) Selling out for 5,000,000 a year?

JBoss CEO Opposes Open-Source Java (CRN)

Posted May 20, 2004 15:42 UTC (Thu) by leandro (guest, #1460) [Link]

> MySQL is another Bitkeeper pain

No, MySQL is free and copylefted, GNU GPL in fact.

JBoss CEO Opposes Open-Source Java (CRN)

Posted May 7, 2004 4:23 UTC (Fri) by dang (subscriber, #310) [Link]

Actually that wasn't the argument either for the use of Bitkeeper or in the discussion of Java going open source in this interview.

The argument for Bitkeeper was basically Linus saying "give me a tool that does what I need it to do and show me that you'll bend it to my needs and I'll use it, otherwise I'll just keep managing things out of my inbox." Larry stepped up to the plate ( and has since repeatedly ) and Bitkeeper was adopted because it was the best tool for the job. Do you actually *read* those clearly articulated posts by Linus ( or the rather direct posts by Al Viro ) ??

And the argument in this interview re: Java had a lot more to do with very real concerns about keeping Java portable and very honest questions about where the win is for going Open Source ( and if the folks at JBoss aren't well situated to feel the good and the bad of Java's current license, then I'm not sure who is ).

It isn't "the same attitude" or even *an* attitude. The plain fact is that people who care strongly about Open Source/Free Software still function in a world where licensing preferences don't, can't and shouldn't dominate where the rubber hits the road. The really nice thing about this interview is that it successfully sketches some of the rivaling shades of gray.

JBoss CEO Opposes Open-Source Java (CRN)

Posted May 7, 2004 7:01 UTC (Fri) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link]

You are right. It's not about the license per se.

But it is because of the license that I cannot do "urpmi java", but I have to go trough hoops clicking on "I Agree" buttons on Suns homepage and then issue some weird rpmbuild commands I have never even heard of before.

Sun's unwillingness to free Java makes it much more difficult to install and installation is the first thing you see when trying new software. So an unfree license has direct negative consequenses on usability. It's not about licensing philosophy, it's just that Suns way of doing things is not optimal.

What do mean weird rpm commands?

Posted May 7, 2004 8:21 UTC (Fri) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]

I use them all the time to rebuild rpm packages from src (for example running bleeding edge cooker apps on my stable box). They are completly standard and worth getting to know if you want to work with source code for you rpm based distro.

JBoss CEO Opposes Open-Source Java (CRN)

Posted May 7, 2004 14:45 UTC (Fri) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link]

Imagine there was a way to use urpmi java and to chose accept on the command line, that would be OK, at least from an administrative point of view.

I would still miss the freedom, but going back to the web site and chose OK for each damn package Sun is releasing is a pain.

Wether Java is free enough or not is out of the question for me. I have to have it on the server.

Of course there are other versions of the SDK (e.g. GNU, IBM), but it's crucial to test with Sun's ones.

When Sun finally DOES open source Java, it'll likely be to late.

Posted May 14, 2004 12:34 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

While I agree with you in the BK instance (tho I believe it will
eventually either go libre or sink into oblivion, Larry saw Linus' need
and directly met it where nobody else, libre or not, was doing so, and the
fact that he went proprietary to begin with was a choice I won't begrudge
him making, as it was his to make, since it was him that stepped up to
provide the solution), Java is an entirely different ballgame. I'm with
IBM there -- the time has clearly come to FLOSS it.

> [V]ery real concerns about keeping Java portable.

As mentioned recently in discussion following a C#/Mono story, Open Source
doesn't need to worry about "portable", because open source
is /by/ /definition/ portable. Even where it isn't directly portable, and
good code tends to be at least /almost/ directly portable, all it needs to
be ported is a bit of work removing say 32-bit specific assumptions when
porting to 64-bit (an area I know a bit about as I'm writing this on my
dual Opteron Linux hobbyist-desktop-workstation), and porting of any
dependencies. Ironically, Microsoft's entry, C#, as implemented in
open-source Mono, is at this point easier to use than Java for
open-sourcers. As the world turns toward open source, Java is in danger
of becoming irrelevent, because it refuses to do so as well, and the
biggest strength it claims, portability, open source already has.

> [W]here [is the win] for going Open Source[?]

Both demonstrating the above point and supplying the answer here, is my
very real experience. Closed source must be ported by the suppliers. If
they refuse to do so, users are out of luck. Open source can be ported
(or supported in other ways, when the supplying company loses interest or
just can't be persuaded to do so for a particular market) by anyone
needing to do so. Of course, this has been one of the enduringly
effective pro-open-source arguements for many years, but Java on AMD64
once again demonstrates it.

There IS a server edition Java VM available for AMD64. There is NO full
desktop edition Java for AMD64. Why? Both Blackdown and Sun itself
refuse to port it, saying there's not enough interest. The server edition
VM is great for long-running Java applications, where the native code is
compiled and remains in memory, because it does a lot of time-intensive
efficiency optimizations that make the code once compiled smaller and
faster. GREAT -- IF your application IS a long-running probably server
application. NOT SO GREAT, if it's a trivial web applet or other trivial
use of the technology, where compile/start-up time, what a desktop edition
is optimized for, matters far more than run-time efficiency, what the
server edition is optimized for.

If Java was open source, both editions would be freely available for new
platforms, as those using them could if necessary download the code and
compile it themselves, instead of them being ignored by the
proprietary-ware vendors, as is happening in the case of desktop AMD64
users. It's a VERY REAL issue, and a VERY REAL win for open source.

To bad Sun is being stubborn about it. By the time it decides to open
source it, Sun will have likely squandered away the opportunity they had.
IBM recognizes this, probably because of intensive open source involvement
of their own. Sun apparently doesn't.

Duncan

When Sun finally DOES open source Java, it'll likely be to late.

Posted May 20, 2004 21:43 UTC (Thu) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link]

> [V]ery real concerns about keeping Java portable.

As mentioned recently in discussion following a C#/Mono story, Open Source doesn't need to worry about "portable", because open source is /by/ /definition/ portable.

I may have misunderstood either what he said or what you wrote (or both!), but it appears to me that he's talking about Java-the-language and you're talking about Java-the-VM. Certainly an open-sourced JVM is fairly portable (although I think you understate it considerably by referring only to word-size issues--threading models have traditionally been a much bigger headache, IIRC), but if different flavors of that JVM start diverging, then how portable is the Java code that's supposed to run on top of it?

That said, I'm fully aware (as is, no doubt, Herr CEO) that there are already a number of JVMs, so it's hard to see where things would be massively worse if Sun's were open-sourced. That is, there's already divergence, and one could certainly argue that, to the extent the divergence stems from actual bugs, having more open source can only help (i.e., they'd get fixed more quickly by those who have been bitten by them and who therefore have a vested interest in doing so). So overall, I tend to side with you on the matter...

Greg