well my opinion is that if/when java is Open Source it only helps java to evolve, but it shouldnt be done if there isnt somekind consortium to watch interest of java.
there are lot of “big” projects that follow Open Source and make’s big bucks for it but then again Sun isnt getting money from java this way either(?) so what whould be diffrent?
[quote]* better hardware acceleration of Java2D and AWT
Still not convinced ? 
[/quote]
No. Then you try to put together a system and you find that component A requires ‘structs’ from “PrinceJava”, while component B requires const parameters found in XyzJava, and there is no version which has implemented both of these.
[quote]Whoever thinks that Open Source is just a matter of making the sourcecode available doesn’t understand the ideas behind it (no offense intended). The first sentence of the Open Source Definition is “Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.”.
[/quote]
But I have an issue with “the definition”… it’s somebody else’s definition basically… I don’t know that all of the points of The “Open Source” definition are sane or practical, or desirable for that matter.
I think the GPL for instance is just plain silly for a lot of the things it has been applied to, and it does not fit the goals that appear to be the spirit behind “Open Source”. Open Source giveth and Open Source taketh away… it seems to me that you gain some ‘rights’, but you lose just as many. If you are ok with the result - cool, but not everyone is.
Agreed, open sourcing Java without standardization is worth nothing. But we have JCP. I am convinced that we could make the language and the SDK evolve a lot faster if we had a strong “standardization organism” and the ability to provide free, open source implementations of these standards.
Now I doubt Sun will release its baby without being forced too, and I don’t think forcing them is a good solution. But IMO open sourcing Java would not necessarly turn it into a piece of crap.
Basically Open Source is an idea, but for practical purposes it’s good to have it written down somewhere as definiton or guideline (the definition is more or less the “Debian Free Software Guidelines” without Debian-specific things). You can view the definition here:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
It’s not very long and you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand it. The last posts have hopefully cleared up some confusion, so we may go back to the question, if it’s good to opensource Java (actually I posted quite a number of questions).
If you know of a way to make “standardization” and “rapid evolution” work in conjunction without making the thing “crap”, you have a ticket to becoming a rich person.
The ISO would love to hear from you, for a start (IIRC the rule of thumb for ISO standards is that it generally takes 5-7 years to get something complex standardized? Minimum is something like 2 years. For java, that would double the time between major releases!). Most standardized languages are only re-standardized every 8-12 years, because it takes so long to do just one round (c.f. use of a 2-digit number at the end - refers to the year of standardization - rather than version numbers!)
For commercial users one of the nice features of Java is that as well as working on Unix (various), it also works rather well (and often better) on Windows. For many open source projects the main contributors seem to be almost proud that their creation works either poorly or not at all on Windows. This attitude is rather off putting.
When using the word “standardization”, I never meant ISO standard. My point is that having a bunch of experts agree on what MUST contain the SDK and how MUST behave the JVM should be sufficient to get compatibility. I think this is what Sun and JCP are doing now.
But the possibility to create its own COMPATIBLE version of the specs, either commercial or free (free as GPL and/or open source) would be great.
And don’t underestimate open source devers. Python, Ruby, Perl work great even though they are open source. There is no point in developing its own if no one codes for it because it is not compatible (the only exception being Microsoft and its crappy J++).
EDIT (before I forget) : I don’t want to start a new flame war on open vs closed source (see linux thread). And I am not saying Sun should let Java “open sourced”. I am just pointing the fact that open source can bring benefits and is not just “fashionable”. 
I think open source is great. I love sharing my work with everyone else and I’ve found it invaluable to learn things from others who have open sourced their work.
But as soon as anyone tries to tell me that open source means something different to being able to see the sourcecode, well, that’s bound to start a pointless argument, isn’t it?
So we have to find a common ground to start arguing over or we’re merely arguing about different things.
What is the lowest common denominator of the phrase “open source”? What is the universal feature of all the ideals and meanings that people attach to it? What bit can’t be disputed? Why, that you can see the source, of course. So where’s the argument if everyone agrees on that?
Now, that said, how would you feel if some dude decided that the source for your game should be made public and started political lobbying to get his way? The game that you toiled over for two years?
Cas
[quote]But as soon as anyone tries to tell me that open source means something different to being able to see the sourcecode, well, that’s bound to start a pointless argument, isn’t it?
So we have to find a common ground to start arguing over or we’re merely arguing about different things.
What is the lowest common denominator of the phrase “open source”? What is the universal feature of all the ideals and meanings that people attach to it? What bit can’t be disputed? Why, that you can see the source, of course. So where’s the argument if everyone agrees on that?
[/quote]
What do you think the Open Source Definition was created for? It was created to have a common ground for arguing about Open Source.
They could have called it Xaslkdjalksh ASdasd and then we’d all be able to argue about Xaslkdjalksh ASdasd. But they decided to redefine “open source” which unfortunately already has a lot of other meanings.
Cas
I think what Cas describes is what Microsoft refers to as “shared source”… it’s like open source, but not really…
Well I think an Open Source (note the capitals) Java solves more problems than it creates. The main one for me is that it probably guarantees my future better than the current state of affairs – I believe an O.S.Java will be able to compete better with a ‘standards-based’ (ha) .Net. I mean, you’ve got all these open source developers who are pedantic about not using proprietary, closed-source, (or anything else that doesn’t fit the definition) software, who are now gunning for DeIcaza and his lot to finish Mono, so they can use .Net on Linux. Throw an Open Source Java at them, and you remove a lot of the arguments from that camp. Sun gets a larger developer base like they’ve been wanting (http://www.fawcette.com/reports/javaone/2003/keynote2/),
and the chances of Java work drying up because of .Net market share decrease significantly.
Yes yes, before you flame, I know I’m glossing over some of the finer points.
Final word though: James Gosling thinks it’s a good idea:
The article is interesting (was it intended to put the same link there twice?) and addresses some of the thoughts here in this forum. The article emphasizes that there are pros and cons and it’s not easy to answer the question, if Java should be opensourced.
I realised that Mono gains momentum and becomes more popular. Is there any insider here who can compare Mono vs. free VMs (gij+gcj)? What other modern object orientated languages/platforms do you know besides .Net and Java? So, if Mono becomes more popular, Java probably becomes less popular.
Can’t tell about Mono (or .Net in general), but a friend of mine is a Debian packager, and it is clear that Java is “teh evil” for hardcore Open Source supporters.
AFAIK (my info may be outdated) only a few Java apps made their way into the distribution, and they are mainly from Apache (Tomcat, Xerces,…) which are included because they are used on server-side.
Since Mono is developed under an Open Source license, it should receive a strong support from this community. In fact, I think there is a kind of “competition” to produce a very good, full-featured .Net implementation so that they could catch a few Windows developers in “Linux’s net”.
Doh!!!
No it wasn’t intended. What a prat. :-[
Thanks. Amending accordingly.
[quote]Can’t tell about Mono (or .Net in general), but a friend of mine is a Debian packager, and it is clear that Java is “teh evil” for hardcore Open Source supporters.
[/quote]
Exactly. Which is why Java -should- be Open Source. When you think about it, with a properly ‘constructed’ licence, TCK-compliance in order to use the Java ‘brand’, there’s no reason why opening Java up should make that much (or any) difference to those who aren’t particularly in favour of the idea. But it’ll make a big difference to the OSS community.
Might be nice to have a stable/unstable release cycle for Java, somewhat like the Linux kernel. Even number releases: 1.6, 1.8, etc are stable, odd numbers contain more experimental features which have received less vigorous testing. From the point of view of the general non-technical public, they never see anything other than ‘even’ releases. Those of us on the cutting edge, server-side, whatever, get to play with cool stuff.
Just noticed Sun’s response:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=53646
[quote]Raymond also says that Sun faces the stark choice of control or ubiquity for Java. Phipps said: ‘Java is already everywhere.’
[/quote]
Horse blinkers anyone?
Well we already have this, up to some extent. The unstable releases are available as “early access”, alphas or betas. I don’t think having a odd/even system is that useful, and anyway discussing it is a bit premature
[quote]The main one for me is that it probably guarantees my future better than the current state of affairs – I believe an O.S.Java will be able to compete better with a ‘standards-based’ (ha) .Net.
[/quote]
Ha! What makes you think IBM, Sun, and all the other multi-billion-dollar backers of Java are all going to go bankrupt? Because you can certainly be sure that’s what it would take for most of them to cede the server market to Microsoft; they’ll make sure java trumps .NET for all they’re worth. They’re not stupid; they know they’ve lost the war for desktops (although Sun and others are fighting some interesting rear-guard actions right now), but the reason they allowed themselves to lose that war was partly that most of their revenues always came from the server side anyway - the profit margins have always been much bigger and the revenues were too (…and MS’s stellar success in growing desktop revenues was quite a shock for them, IIRC).
Purely for political reasons, even leaving aside technology reasons, they will never allow .NET to dominate. You’re safe with your java job for a good twenty years yet…(although, of course, it would be very foolish to base career choices on the opinions of a single person like me :))
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure a platform owner should want the kind of developers who make their implementation choices based so completely upon politics rather than what is the best tool for the job - that’s a mentality that pretty much flies in the face of most project-management and systems-design best-practice. Shrug. I don’t know; just a thought…