After acknowledging that "we've had a bit of a chill in our relationship with IBM", Sun President Jonathan Schwartz announced that the relationship has been saved, announcing that IBM has will license Java for an additional 11 years, and that IBM will also begin supporting the entire Websphere product line on Solaris SPARC/AMD.
IBM representatives John Mills and Websphere General Manager Robert LeBlanc spoke about how important Java has been to IBM and how important Java will be to IBM going forward.
But is this announcement really news? Clearly IBM needed to renew their license, they have an entire product line to support. Is this just business as usual, or does this mean that all the issues IBM had with Java's licensing arrangements and control by Sun, as evidenced by their comment on every single recent JSR review ballot, have been solved?
-
IBM re-commits to Java; licenses platform for another 11 years (14 messages)
- Posted by: Floyd Marinescu
- Posted on: June 27 2005 14:01 EDT
Threaded Messages (14)
- IBM re-commits to Java; licenses platform for another 11 years by Steven Goldsmith on June 27 2005 15:36 EDT
- how much? by Miko Matsumura on June 27 2005 16:21 EDT
-
how much? by Vagif Verdi on June 27 2005 04:56 EDT
-
how much? by mark lybarger on June 27 2005 05:01 EDT
- how much? by Karl Banke on June 27 2005 06:28 EDT
-
Not Quite by Paul Anderson on June 28 2005 03:30 EDT
- By all means, go ahead and argue... by Frank Wilhoit on June 28 2005 04:26 EDT
- how much? by Joe Fawzy on June 27 2005 05:03 EDT
-
"Java license" by M E on June 28 2005 01:22 EDT
- "Java license" by srikant noorani on June 28 2005 02:52 EDT
-
how much? by mark lybarger on June 27 2005 05:01 EDT
-
how much? by Vagif Verdi on June 27 2005 04:56 EDT
- how much? by Miko Matsumura on June 27 2005 16:21 EDT
- 11 is 10% better by Frank Cohen on June 27 2005 19:43 EDT
- IBM re-commits to Java; licenses platform for another 11 years by Joe M. on June 28 2005 03:59 EDT
- IBM re-commits to Java; licenses platform for another 11 years by Wille Faler on June 28 2005 07:14 EDT
-
IBM re-commits to Java; licenses platform for another 11 years[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Steven Goldsmith
- Posted on: June 27 2005 15:36 EDT
- in response to Floyd Marinescu
Cool, now maybe IBM can get Java working faster on the iSeries. Or maybe even stay up to date with the current FCS. -
how much?[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Miko Matsumura
- Posted on: June 27 2005 16:21 EDT
- in response to Steven Goldsmith
I wonder how much 11 year license cost? -
how much?[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Vagif Verdi
- Posted on: June 27 2005 16:56 EDT
- in response to Miko Matsumura
I wonder how much 11 year license cost?
I wonder what the heck "java license" means ?
I do not need no stinking license to use java.
Why IBM needs it ? -
how much?[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: mark lybarger
- Posted on: June 27 2005 17:01 EDT
- in response to Vagif Verdi
IBM releases a jvm for common (x86) as well as ibm special platforms (iSeries, pSeries, etc). to get the jvm, ibm licenses it from sun, then they tweak it quite a bit. from garbage collector to anything else they can get their hands on. -
how much?[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Karl Banke
- Posted on: June 27 2005 18:28 EDT
- in response to mark lybarger
IBM releases a jvm for common (x86) as well as ibm special platforms (iSeries, pSeries, etc). to get the jvm, ibm licenses it from sun, then they tweak it quite a bit. from garbage collector to anything else they can get their hands on.
But essentially they could write it themselves couldn't they? I mean the specification for the JVM is open? The language definition is open etc. Quite puzzled there. Anyway, what was the bigger news was that websphere will be available for SUN (x86 & sparc). So it seems more to be a commitment for Solaris than one for Java. How that goes with Sun open sourcing their JEE is quite a mystery. Might be a challenge for BEA though. -
Not Quite[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Paul Anderson
- Posted on: June 28 2005 03:30 EDT
- in response to mark lybarger
The IBM JVM's are now very very different than the SUN JVM's, I'm sure that there is a littlecommon code but they are more different than similar. IBM adda lot of value add the their JVM's are arguably better. -
By all means, go ahead and argue...[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Frank Wilhoit
- Posted on: June 28 2005 16:26 EDT
- in response to Paul Anderson
...that the IBM JVM is better. You may discuss any platform of your choice, but I am hoping that you will address JVM versions 1.3.1 or later on AIX 5.x . Please be specific. -
how much?[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Joe Fawzy
- Posted on: June 27 2005 17:03 EDT
- in response to Vagif Verdi
+1 -
"Java license"[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: M E
- Posted on: June 28 2005 13:22 EDT
- in response to Vagif Verdi
I wonder what the heck "java license" means ?I do not need no stinking license to use java.Why IBM needs it ?
They get to call their implementation "Java". Without a license they'd need be in Kaffe's situation: "Sun controls the Java trademark, and has never endorsed Kaffe, so technically, Kaffe is not Java." (from the kaffe.org web site). -
"Java license"[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: srikant noorani
- Posted on: June 28 2005 14:52 EDT
- in response to M E
I wonder what the heck "java license" means ?I do not need no stinking license to use java.Why IBM needs it ?
They get to call their implementation "Java". Without a license they'd need be in Kaffe's situation: "Sun controls the Java trademark, and has never endorsed Kaffe, so technically, Kaffe is not Java." (from the kaffe.org web site).
Not sure if this answers the original question of why they need a license when I or anyone else never required one ?? -
License[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: M E
- Posted on: June 28 2005 21:09 EDT
- in response to srikant noorani
Not sure if this answers the original question of why they need a license when I or anyone else never required one ??I wonder what the heck "java license" means ?I do not need no stinking license to use java.Why IBM needs it ?
They get to call their implementation "Java". Without a license they'd need be in Kaffe's situation: "Sun controls the Java trademark, and has never endorsed Kaffe, so technically, Kaffe is not Java." (from the kaffe.org web site).
Anyone who's implemented a JVM based on Sun's specs. and wanted to call that implementation "Java" has had to obtain a license from Sun, that includes Microsoft and IBM. If IBM didn't renew their license, they could not call their implementation Java. Presumably the Java brand is important to them, else they'd skip the license and promote "IBMJ#+" instead. -
11 is 10% better[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Frank Cohen
- Posted on: June 27 2005 19:43 EDT
- in response to Floyd Marinescu
Robert LeBlanc, General Manager for WebSphere Software at IBM General announced that IBM signed a new license agreement with Sun for Java. Sun wins big from this agreement in that IBM will support Sun's OpenSolaris operating environment.
There was a bit of humor in the IBM announcement. John Loiacono, Executive Vice President of the Software Group at Sun Microsystems said, "IBM re-upped the license for Java deal for 11 years. As Spinal Tap said 11 is better." To which LeBlance quipped, "11 is 10% better."
-Frank Cohen -
IBM re-commits to Java; licenses platform for another 11 years[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Joe M.
- Posted on: June 28 2005 03:59 EDT
- in response to Floyd Marinescu
Nice to see IBM are *finally* going to port WebSphere to Solaris on Opteron. Is DB2 going to be ported? -
IBM re-commits to Java; licenses platform for another 11 years[ Go to top ]
- Posted by: Wille Faler
- Posted on: June 28 2005 07:14 EDT
- in response to Floyd Marinescu
..that should give them plenty of time to get them to Java 1.5.. ;)