Easile
The source-code licenses are the GNU General Public License and the Sun Industry Standards Source License. The document license is the Public Document License.
AND OPEN OFFICE DOES NOT NEED JRE TO BE INSTALLED TO RUN.
kthx, problem solved.
[quote]Easile
The source-code licenses are the GNU General Public License and the Sun Industry Standards Source License. The document license is the Public Document License.
AND OPEN OFFICE DOES NOT NEED JRE TO BE INSTALLED TO RUN.
kthx, problem solved.
[/quote]
But that’s not what JasonB’s getting at, at all. The facts are that Sun is currently developing StarOffice, at one point they donated the entire codebase to the OS community allowing them to produce OOo from it, and they migrate much of the technology that they’ve spent time and money developing straight into the current OOo builds. You cannot deny that Sun are very much involved in the Open Source world through projects such as this.
To give another example, Sun produced a number of APIs as part of the internal research/development of a JSR, and once they realised the OS world was a more appropiate place to develop them, they released them under the BSD licence. They still expend time and effort in improving the libraries, namely JOGL, JOAL and JInput.
kthx, your turn.
Open Source is charity.
Sun is attempting to boost the java gaming community by letting the users to develop the applications, because SGI is not going to give up to their(Sun’s) selfish demands.
The problem is that Sun is not allowed to make ‘official’ OpenGL port, because Sun/SGI licences conflict. SGI does not let Sun to do what Sun wants to do. Sun wants direct control over the API. SGI does not want this to happen. Sun gets direct control over the Open Source community. Problem solved.
It is easy to explain Star Office like this, too. Sun can’t take advatange of toolkits like GTK. Users can. Sun does not want to develop own toolkits. Licence and copyright remains still at Sun. Problem Solved.
“Sun Open Source” is not charity. It is about boosting the competibility of Java without the tariffs to SGI. It is simply business.
[quote]Open Source is charity.
[/quote]
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, or you wouldn’t make a blanket troll like that.
There are numerous definitions of open source (with or without the capitals), but charity isn’t one of them. Just because the source has been made freely available does not mean it’s a charity. MySQL is a good case in point. That’s a company, not a charity, by the way.
Hey, guys, we’re famous! Finally, my efforts to draw jgo to the attention of IT news feeds have paid off…although I didn’t expect to turn up as the first quoted author ;).
which came from earlier on this topic:
[quote]
If this happened I’d probably never use java for any more commercial projects. I have been a professional C programmer, and if I’m to go back towards that hell (i.e. the chaos of an uncontrolled mainstream language) then there are better languages to use [1]. C++ as a value proposition gains a great deal (comparitively) if java becomes yet another opensource limp biscuit without standards and without control.
[/quote]
You basically said:
Open Source = no standards, no control
I think there is not much evidence why this should be true, but maybe it’s more important what people fear than what will really happen.
IMHO -
-
I can view whatever source code I need to in Java right now. When I had an issue with some RTP stuff, I got the source and looked it over to get a better understanding of what was going on.
-
Open Source, as it relates to GNU and all the others, seems like more of a buzz word than anything useful. As I understand, its up to the creator/licensor to enforce the license. When’s the last time you saw some poor dude who stuck his GNU license on code enforce it? How would this person even know if his licensed code had been modified/compiled into a commercial app? Why go through all the circles of stamping code with headers and such, if it never really gets you anywhere? I’m not advocating hijacking code, just stating what I see as the silliness of all this open source worry.
-
I love learning from others and don’t mind sharing either. If I make a commercial product, then I don’t see the problem with keeping my hardwork my own. If I trust someone to show them my source, knowing they will learn from it - great. If I give somepeople my code for use in their commercial projects great too.
-
Sun should keep trucking along they way they have. Having one distribution/access point to Java works. I don’t have to go to downloads.com or rpmfinder.com or wherever for the latest versions for my platform. I like that consistency. I don’t see where it benefits Sun to invest all the resources they would need to, to redo their licensing model and redo the way java is managed as a language.
-
Open Source projects are great and I’m glad for them. Source forge and other sites are a wonderful resource both for apps and for learning. I don’t think it means everything should be that way.
Just my thoughts for this crazy thread!
[quote]When’s the last time you saw some poor dude who stuck his GNU license on code enforce it? How would this person even know if his licensed code had been modified/compiled into a commercial app? Why go through all the circles of stamping code with headers and such, if it never really gets you anywhere? I’m not advocating hijacking code, just stating what I see as the silliness of all this open source worry.
[/quote]
Off the top of my head, look at Mplayer (linux mpeg video/audio player). They have some long-standing issues with noticing commercial companies (even hardware manufacturers!) taking their GPL code without credit. Last time I checked, it hadn’t been resolved yet, but could be worth watching if you’re interested in such things (their case is fairly open and shut).
I went to the homepage of Mplayer and poked around to find some of the stuff you mentioned.
The only thing is, he isn’t doing anything about it. Think of all the time and money he’ll have to put in, just to enforce that the sources used with his have to be available. It really isn’t worth it for him.
The only way it might be beneficial for him is if he could show that by not letting people view the source, it robs him of any recognition as a great programmer. This could harm his ability to work, since he wouldn’t be as valuable to people. Ie - I’m a nobody programmer vs I’m the programmer who wrote app XYZ and it was used in blah blah blah projects.
Thats the only think I’ve thought was always goofy about marking all your code as open source for all time space and eternity. It actually puts more burden on you to enforce it.
One thing it also does for the people who abuse the original software is mark them as ‘not nice people’. This could of course hurt them.