Mark Shuttleworth, Tim Bray and Simon Phipps were in SecondLife today, discussing the future of Java (programming) with the GNU General Public License. I (Nobody Fugazi) got there about an hour early and met a few new people and some other people - I was worried that I wouldn't be able to get there at the last minute, since a simulator in SecondLife can only hold so many people.
I watched Tao Takashi set up for the video, and there was some good geeky discussion going around as well. I finally got to 'meet' Kitten Lulu as well, which was an unexpected bonus.
Java and the GPL
The news hit earlier that Java has been GPL'd by Sun Microsystems. The reasoning given was, quite simply, that the GNU/Linux market needed to be tapped. While sitting there, I noted that all the media was reporting open - but Mark Shuttleworth and everyone else was talking about Free Software - the distinction which is often glossed over. Therefore my burning question was whether marketing and the philosophy varied, and the response was that there was some confusion - and that this would be straightened out over time.
Questions related to the effects of the licensing were par for the course, but there were no questions as to the value of adding Java to distributions of Linux; that seemed apparent. The questions mainly revolved around the interactions of the licensing with other products - such as Apache Web Server. It was good to hear that many of the communities would be responsible for redefining those interactions. The issues of licensing Apache code with Java is something which will have to be hashed out, as many other things, but Java is GPL'd. That's that.
Forks were also discussed, and Tim Bray and others are encouraging forks. The catch is that, to carry the Java name, they have to pass rigorous tests - so Java forks with solid compatibility are the only ones which will carry the Java name.
Another question which arose was whether the GPLing with Java could create problems akin to those which existed with Microsoft; the answer was that anyone who abused Java or the GPL would be sued (as they were last time).
Concerns about explaining licensing to end users were addressed quite simply - nothing has changed for the end user. Java's still got a solid name, and Java is here to stay - and, apparently, fork.
Overall, the GPLing of Java seemed to be embraced as a good thing. It's apparent that discussions with Richard Stallman were being had, the phrases 'GNU/Linux' and 'Free Software' were common - which, in itself, is a bit of a silent victory for the Free Software Foundation.
The Event Itself
The pre-event saw a lot of great people there, and afterward everyone was having a good time as the speakers came out and pressed the flesh. Unfortunately, the simulator crashed just as Kitten, Tao and myself were discussing the open sourcing of SecondLife itself. The handling of the event is difficult to ascertain; sure, the folks were up there for the press conference but we were listening to audio (some people may have watched video, I didn't see it).
The behind the scenes stuff seemed to be pretty involved, and no matter what I may say about MillionsOfUs, once the event started they were efficient and they were almost invisible in the discussion. That's high praise coming from me. They are good.
And the kicker from me? I could participate in the conference from Trinidad and Tobago, and even wandered around in my pengiun avatar after being invited onstage by Tim Bray. The WSIS could have used this, but... sometimes bureaucrats have problems with technology.
And, In The End...
In the end, this means Java is now more strategically placed for the future - and that true GNU/Linux distributions can now have Java. Expect updates in distributions soon; I know Ubuntu will probably be one of the first out there with Java. I might even have to dust off my Java hacking skills. Who knows?
When you consider that now Java can be ported to all sorts of things - including the Simputer - a lot of pre-existing code can be used on machines that couldn't be before. Where Novell and Microsoft are playing footsie to mixed reviews, there doesn't seem to be an obvious downside to this change in licensing. The ripples from this are yet to be determined but my magic 8 ball says, "Outlook looks good".
Of course, not Microsoft Outlook...
Technorati Tags: FOSS Notes ICT Open Content Open Source People and Communications Personal Notes Programming Realist Cult SecondLife Software Software Documentation Software Engineering Technology Technology & Communications Technology and Society Technology Observations Using Software Virtual World Warm Fuzzy
Pictures Available -
You can see all the pictures I took of this conference here.
I'm the penguin.
Java & the GPL
Taran--
First, thanks for the comment on my weblog.
Funny thing, though, we are actually saying the same thing. I think that the move to using the GPL for distribution of the Java source is definitely a strategically solid change. Not only will it help Java, it will help with Sun's Linux strategy, too. It normalizes the two, if you will.
Where we differ is in the notion that the GPL is free; that the GPL allows you to own your modifications to Sun's code. It quite explicitly does not. Sure, you could "hoard your source" (as a friend puts it), but that isn't really interesting outside of the small set of people running purely internal servers/services, is it?
But as soon as you get beyond that, the GPL quite explicitly limits exactly how you can use your modifications. And, therefore, the GPL is not a "free license" in that it quite explicitly limits freedom.
Now, do not misinterpret my words. I do not disagree with the GPL. Not at all. Actually, I think Sun's use of the GPL is quite brilliant. It guarantees that anything useful that happens to the source will either be shared or will generate revenue for Sun in the form of custom licensing.
A win-win situation it would seem.
:-) GPL and Free
And thank you for commenting here. Sorry about the moderation, been having spam of late.
See... I tried to make this point on your blog... the thing is that if I take GPL'd code, someone wrote it before me. And if I modify it, I am deriving from their work as well - so if I close it off in a cul-de-sac, I'm effectively claiming the work of others as my own. We could go back and forth, but when a user downloads the binary/executable from me, they see my name and think that I did it all. I didn't, of course. So there's that.
Of course, the catch is that if you don't distribute, you don't have to share the source. In other words, if you're going to profit directly from the work of others, you have to allow others to do the same. That seems 'Fair' to me.
Freedom is subjective, I suppose. Whose freedom is more important? Yours or another person who uses the work or the people who originally created the work? I guess if you're going to modify someone else's code, and you accept their license, you should follow that license. I don't see that as 'less free'.
Like I said on your blog, we could go at this for hours so I stopped there. I understand your perspective on the 'free' bit, I just don't see it that way. I hope you see my perspective as well. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle for some people.
GPL
Oh, I completely understand, and even agree with, the terms of the GPL. I know what intends and I see what it has achieved. And I completely understand the sort of "karmic return on investment" that it attempts to quantify and subsequently guarantee through its execution.
I just don't believe that is the sole motive for Sun's actions. Not by a long shot. Sun is a for-profit company that has a fiduciary responsibility to SUNW shareholders. Given away the shop's contents for the good of the world's soul doesn't make business sense.
My point is only that the GPL is an awesome tool for a corporate entity to guarantee "openness" in usage of their technology up to the point where a second corporate entity decides that their use of said technology is so valuable they want to pay for it not to be open.
The GPL is the ultimate "try before you buy" business tool; "you can sample as much as you want for free until you actually want to make money, then you either need to figure out how to make money while giving your tech away (which some *have* done successfully, though rare) or pay up, buster".
I'll bet you a beer -- yeah, free as in beer :) -- that one of two things happen in the next year. (1) someone cuts a custom licensing deal with someone such that that person or company has a non-GPL license exception for GPL'd Sun technology or (2) that some corporate entity "releases" news that Sun killed their business by denying 'em such a deal (and, yeah, (2) is a bit loose -- how about limiting it to a press release to that effect?).
(Oh, boy. I answered the math question wrong. Hopefully there isn't a log of that.)
Post new comment