Discussions

News: Mike Loukides on SUN J2EE licensing vs. Open Source

  1. The recent discussion on SUNs licensing restrictions and its restrictive effects on Open Source (the Enhydra case) has led Mike Loukides at O'Reilly to publish an article with his thought on Java and Open Source Appservers. In the article, Mike forsees a grim future for Java itself (given increased competition from .NET) unless Sun can get the full support of the open source community.

    I must say that I fully agree with Mr Loukides. Java needs open source, and open source needs java. Is there any way we ('we' - as in the independent developer community) can make SUN realize the benefits they will get from an active (and, yes - certified) J2EE OS community? Do we need open sourced j2ee? J2ee is already big in open source (take a look at the Java Foundry at http://sourceforge.net/foundry/java/) and the wrong action from SUN could very well spoil the momentum java has right now.

    Mike Loukides article can be found at http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2001/10/10/osjava.html.

    /Anders

    Threaded Messages (4)

  2. Disagree mostly .....[ Go to top ]

    I think people fail to realise is that Java is a product standard. The reason why it wasn't polluted years ago, was because Sun maintains very tight control, and to prevent future attempts, they should carry on doing that.

    Love 'em or hate 'em, but one of the reasons that Microsoft has been so successful is because business folk know that what they get will work. If everyone was allowed to add their own bits to Windows, then it would be a compatibility nightmare.

    The same goes for J2EE. And for all the calls for "hand over the source code!" I hear just as many calls to keep it under Sun control, so that we always know what we're dealing with.

    Having said that; it's ridiculous to charge anyone, anything for J2EE certification. I really can't see a need for it.

    And if a J2EE product doesn't use any Sun code, then I don't see hopw they can have a legal claim on it.


  3. Disagree mostly .....[ Go to top ]

    "And if a J2EE product doesn't use any Sun code, then I don't see hopw they can have a legal claim on it."

    That is the key. As an open source vendor I want to include the servlet.jar, j2ee.jar etc which is Suns code, and falls under the binary license.

    You could make the users download these from Suns site as part of the install process (but what a pain). JBoss went to Sun to say "Can I use this" and they said yes. I am sure that Lutris (Enhydra guys) could have done the same.
    Lutris had other reasons for not doing this... like trying to make money ;)
  4. Disagree mostly .....[ Go to top ]

    I agree. Right on, Jboss dudes...
  5. I agree - I'm often concerned by the fact that Java is solely own by Sun. Sun, like any other large computing corporation (MS, Oracle) wants to control as much of the computing environment as possible. To put all one's faith in the good-will of Sun makes me nervous. Obviously, Sun has not showed the kind of behavior that MS as showed, but I get concerned by Sun shutting down the open-source providers (at least in terms of certification).

    If Sun really wants to beat MS, they should open source it at this point - but maintain control over direction and management of the code base.

    I'm curious if anyone knows how much money Sun actually makes from Java - I can't believe it's huge given the amount of resources they devote to it...they must be spending a fortune on it.