According to the Apache Group, Sun and the other major vendors have locked Open Source out of Java in a recent vote on JSR 99, the Java Specification Participation Agreement. Looking at the comments from the various vendors (submitted with their votes), Apache's stance on an open and fair licensing scheme for developing Java standards is shared by by many of the vendors.
Read Borland, Fujitsu, HP, IONA, Nokia, and Oracle voted with Sun to lock Open Source out of Java.
Read The JSR 99 Votes
, which includes comments from all the vendors.</a>.
Oh no, I must have typed in slashdot.org instead of theserverside.com... do we really have to hear another sob story about poor old open source?
I'm not a legal expert, but it seems to me that Apache makes valid points, and most vendors seem to agree (maybe because that's also the "politicaly correct" thing to do). Anyway, I think its a good thing that Apache criticized the JSP, but it is also a good thing that it passed. Atleast it's a step forward, and these legal meshes tend to drag...
Besides, further enhancements can be added during the revision stages. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if apache cast it's vote after making sure the JSR would pass, because they did put a lot of work into it, from what I understand.
Just my 0.02
yeah, some of those companies don't care about open source, and that's ok. The one's I have a problem with are those that just want kodak moments pretending to be the poor old Open Source's buddy. Sun is the most guilty of this. They "open" Solaris, StarOffice, and Forte. All the Open Source hackers on OpenOffice will have their code sold in StarOffice 6, for Sun's profit. Apache is rightfully afraid of what will happen to Java if Sun ever get's the chance to control the market. At least there is this .Net thing that should keep Sun at bay for now. As much work as JBoss and the Apache people have put into their products, it's quite reasonable to be worried about Sun's position. Now, with all the competition, is the best time to pressure Sun into openning up Java. I think there would be quite a bit more Java products if it were a more open platform.
there is a fine line between open systems and abandoned systems. I'm sorry, but we dont live in utopia.
I'm happy with the way Sun handles things and to change that would be step backwards.
"Apache is rightfully afraid of what will happen to Java if Sun ever get's the chance to control the market. At least there is this .Net thing that should keep Sun at bay for now."
I wish that Sun would work more cooperatively with Apache, but Microsoft is a bigger problem in my view. There is the WS-1 comittee in which Sun has been pretty much excluded. Despite the importance of Apache SOAP in the Web Services scheme I see no sign that they have been invited to WS-1 either.
Why isn't Apache making a big roar about this as well? Or is it just the month for everyone to bash Sun around?
No, it's the year of "I want my testkit for free". That's the only thing apache wants. This are only battles in the Testkit war.
"I want my testkit for free"
But in truth why shouldn't they have a free testkit? Apache does a helluva lot of good work in evangelizing stuff which Sun is interested in. IBM gave it's SOAP inplementation over to Apache, why shouldn't Sun make the testkit available?
Apache should also have a rep on the major bords, like WS-1.
I am actually quite happy in Sun's handling of Java. I am not against open source or anything, but there should be a final authority in protecting the standards and the language. Otherwise there will be many incompatible Java clones, since everyone will stretch it to its own advantage. Remember what MS tried to do with its "Java" release.
I am very happy that there is only one, standard java. And the way Sun is handling it. The only problem till now for me is that the slow progression.
I have not seen the JSPA draft under discussion, so my observations are based on the comments made by companies
and Apache's position on JSPA
The details seem to indicate differences on finer points. It is not that Sun wants JSPA to make specifications developed under JCP as completely proprietary or Apache wants them free for all. It appears that a number of things have been left at the discretion of JCP Program Mgmt. Office, controlled by Sun and this is not acceptable to Apache and some other companies. Interestingly, these are the same companies who are making money on J2EE products and would like to have more control over evolution of Java.
So what we are witnessing is essentially a battle for control of the J2EE architecture. Let us not confuse it with war between open source and proprietary technologies.
I do want J2EE to succeed in the marketplace on a sustained basis. That is only possible if there is continued investment in this technology -- in both implementation and in evolution of specifications. In the long term, the investment can only be guaranteed if the players hope to make serious money by doing so. Open source development has its place and both Sun and IBM realize this quite well, perhaps more than we would care to admit ( just look at the mailing list archive of prominent Apache Jakarta projects ). However, it is not in the best interest of the industry, vendors as well as cutomers, to completely destroy the potential of making money.
Most of the UNIX vendors have seen the onslaught of Linux and thinning of margins on UNIX/Linux servers ( "commoditization" ) and perhaps would like to "slow" the commoditization of J2EE App Servers. And anything that helps is welcome.
In the short term, I do not see any serious threat to J2EE open source projects such as JBoss from Sun. They are not prepared for the developer community backlash. Not when the the Microsoft has come out so stronger with dotNet.
Quite strangely, I feel that Sun, Apache and others who have good Java products should charge money for real commercial use ( This way Apache or any other such foundation, would be able to pay for TCKs ). I see a number of good consequences of this: (i)This will draw more serious players in the market; (ii) Customers will be assured that they are dealing with companies with real revenues and capable of meeting commitments; (iii) Will create a war chest for the looming prolonged war with dotNet.
Note -- yes, I work for one of the companies that votes "YES" but views and opinions expressed here are my own and not of my employer.
Finally, Sun will be forced to make Java Open Source as a preventive measure against the evil empire operating from Redmond.
Musaddique Husain Qazi
Anyone else notice that Compaq and HP did not vote the same way? (HP was a YES with no comment, Compaq a NO with a thoughtful comment supporting Apache)
Anyone else notice that Caldera votes YES as well?
Give me a break! It's simple economics, the goal of a corporation is to maximize profits. How will they maximize profits by releasing things to the public? As an open source developer, I find serious fault with the open source camp saying that Open Source is better. Yes, some products are better. However, I do feel that some products are better left to corporations to manage the baselines because it takes money to add the features. Why should we question a corporation when its main motive is profit?
It's great to see organizations such as JBoss sell services centered around their open source product, ie. Training, consulting, books, etc. I think this is a good business model if the product is good and JBoss is that good!
I think the question is would you want software from a programmer who is about to be evicted from their apartment or would you want software from a programmer who actually has the time and resources to do a complete requirements, design, and analysis phase?
"Give me a break! It's simple economics, the goal of a corporation is to maximize profits."
Treu, but there are varying theories on HOW to maximize profits. How does Sun profit by making practically all it's software freely downloadable? Yet is does, or thinks it does at very least!
"How will they maximize profits by releasing things to the public?"
Like the JDK, J2EE, etc. Good question, ask Scott McNealy and Bill Joy.
"As an open source developer, I find serious fault with the open source camp saying that Open Source is better. Yes, some products are better."
Me too. I'm not an open source developer, though I'm a better developer than I was from downloading all kinds of free goodies. From Sun, Apapche, IBM, BEA, HP. Maybe even Microsoft one day!
"However, I do feel that some products are better left to corporations to manage the baselines because it takes money to add the features. Why should we question a corporation when its main motive is profit?"
I don't. But it seems to me that an argument could be made within Sun that sacrificing LT $100,000 in profits to make Apache feel good is damn good business. If Sun caved on this, Apache would go gnaw on the WS-1 leg......
Call me cynical, but one point that came up on the Javalobby thread on this same topic is the interpretation that this is not so much a battle between Sun and Open Source as a battle between Sun and IBM, to the extent that Apache has become a foil for IBM to promote their own agenda.
Hmm, somwhow I completely agree, it seems like a battle between Sun and IBM... I also think that the new JSPA sure has issues regarding open source (I havenm't read it, private access ;-) but hey, it is a step forward, Apache thinks so too... I'm glad it was approved, hopefully they'll improve with the next iteration, but hey, its a step forward!
And then, Sun didn't accuse e.g. JBoss of anything, though I think they _could_ if they wanted to (as I understand it the J2EE compatibility test kit is mandatory to be passed for a J2EE server... earlier or later ;-)--- still, they didn't do it. That's ok, isn't it?
I do admire the contribution of the open source community.
However, the issue of control of the java needs careful consideration. The threat .Net poses to the computing world and marketing power supported by huge cashflow from windows monopoly should not be ignored. It is not unusual that an inferior product or service with superior packaging can easily dominate a market.
It is crucial that Sun should find a way which will ensure wholehearted support from open source community as well as support from vendors, which should be able to profit from java platform through better implementations of java specs. Easier said than done , but otherwise a rift between open source and java would lead to a microsoft domination.
"It is crucial that Sun should find a way which will ensure wholehearted support from open source community as well as support from vendors, which should be able to profit from java platform through better implementations of java specs. Easier said than done , but otherwise a rift between open source and java would lead to a microsoft domination."
Agreed, Sun's actions clearly demonstrate extreme paranoia about losing relevance in the J2EE sphere, as they fight IBM for control of the standard on one end and MS.NET on the the other end. Might have made sense for them to buy BEA some time ago; don't know if it does now since only time will tell how BEA weathers the app server commoditization trend. Given these concerns, and Apache's affiliation with IBM, arguably the cheapest and smartest move Sun could make would be to move closer to JBoss, find a way for them to get certified and make JBoss the official reference implementation. The traditional MS path to conquest is through the low-end. Happened with the workstation and server markets, the app server could be next.
Messi: "I also think that the new JSPA sure has issues regarding open source (I havenm't read it, private access ;-)"
That has to be my favorite part of the JCP -- it's work is all conducted behind closed doors.
"this is not so much a battle between Sun and Open Source as a battle between Sun and IBM, to the extent that Apache has become a foil for IBM to promote their own agenda."
Possibly. This mikght serve to explain Sun's exclusion from WS-1 to date. Both sides need to remember that this is a relatively minor battle and to keep track of what M$ is doing with .NET.