"IBM on Wednesday sent an open letter to Sun Microsystems urging Sun to make
Java technology open source, CNET News.com has learned.

In a letter sent by Rod Smith, IBM's vice president of emerging technology,
IBM offered to work with Sun to create a project that would shepherd
development of Java through an open-source development model. If
implemented, portions of Sun's most valuable software asset--Java--would be
freely available, and contributors ranging from volunteer programmers to
large corporations would submit changes to the Java software.

"Sun's strong commitment to open-source Java would speed the development of
a first-class and compatible open-source Java implementation to the benefit
of our customers and our industry," Smith wrote to Sun vice president and
fellow Rob Gingell. "We are firmly convinced the open source community
would rally around this effort."

Under the offer, IBM would provide technical resources and code for the
open-source Java implementation, while Sun would provide documentation and
tests around the Java specifications, which Sun controls. IBM is heavily
invested in Java, and the company's Java-based products have significant
market share.

Smith said that making Java open-source software would accelerate the
adoption of Java software and "open a whole world of opportunity for new
applications and growth of the Java community."

Sun was not immediately available for comment.

....."

http://marketwatch-cnet.com.com/2100...feed&subj=news




Discuss.



--
POOP

POOP wrote:

Are they out of their cotton-picking minds?

What else does Sun have to sell but java now that their hardware and OS
business are down the tubes !?!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Bailo wrote:

| POOP wrote:
|
|
|>
|>"IBM on Wednesday sent an open letter to Sun Microsystems urging Sun to
|>make Java technology open source, CNET News.com has learned.
|
|
| Are they out of their cotton-picking minds?
|
| What else does Sun have to sell but java now that their hardware and OS
| business are down the tubes !?!


Uhmm, I realize your not the brightest Bailo, but you do realize 'Open
Source' doesnt mean 'have to give it away' I think you should check into
such things as Dual Licensing, and the GPL.

Its 'Free' as in freedom, not 'Free' as in Beer.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFAPbis5sKixANmEMgRAtmRAKDd5gjCa6qs40LVLxAgAX 1f0huYGQCfRiNy
32OrcpRQn4KXt2v4f1ZHopQ=
=Q6iP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Philip Callan wrote:

Blah blah blah. WTF does that mean. You know, I have heard it a hundred
times and it still sounds like bullshit to me.

Philip Callan wrote:
Someone mention free beer?

Net Resident wrote:

LOL...obviously served at Armonk.

BTW, why doesn't IBM release the source code for MVS, Lotus, DB2 and Deep
Blue as well as every research and production product they own ?

John Bailo wrote:

I'd like to see OS/2 tossed into the mix also...


--

************************************************** ****************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ff&group=linux
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
This email account no longers accepts attachments or messages containing
html.
10:01am up 10 days, 22:35, 3 users, load average: 0.05, 0.10, 0.09

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:17:54 +0000, John Bailo wrote:

and then IMB wouldn't get to pound SCOX into the ground. Now how much fun
would that be?

--
I yustabe+me, but I was never Y-O-U

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:26:22 +0000, John Bailo wrote:

still, you seem proud of your disability. BTW, please explain again why
the integrated video chip on your $60 mobo is the envy of the gaming crowd.

--
I yustabe+me, but I was never Y-O-U

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Philip Callan
<callanca@shaw.ca>
wrote
on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:12:59 GMT
<vMi%b.618955$X%5.323053@pd7tw2no>:
The source is already readily available, if one wants to accept
the JCLP license, which is rather restrictive.

There are a large number of issues here.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Bailo wrote:

| Philip Callan wrote:

| Its 'Free' as in freedom, not 'Free' as in Beer.
|
|
|> Blah blah blah. WTF does that mean. You know, I have heard it a hundred
|> times and it still sounds like bullshit to me.
|
|

Here, if you dont mind words with more than 3 syllables, and understand
english, try reading this essay:

http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publi...ne-speech.html

This man is easily one of the most respected people in the Digital age
with regards to rights.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFAPmFX5sKixANmEMgRAtlwAKDinwEGM1qMcHVMiBpekq WgHBYtGACfT9b3
KmUc2Sda1L+Wvu4nlDJyeHI=
=8FLU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <2Zi%b.10096$aT1.1737@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
John Bailo wrote:


Even if they chose to distribute the source free of (monetary) charge,
they could in principle charge for e.g. support contracts.

As I understand it, the (monetray) "price" you charge users for access to
your source code is an orthogonal issue to the rights you grant users
after they receive that source code (i.e. under some license).

Consider, e.g., the "Artistic License" under which perl is
distributed. IIRC it allows modification and redistribution of the
source code, with the restrictions that a) copyright notices in the
code you got be retained in the modified code you redistribute (I
assume gpl has this as well?) and b) if you make any modifications
prior to redistribution you _must_ change the name of what you're
redistributing (i.e. you can't change it and still call it "perl").

Obviously, perl is also available free of charge, but that doesn't
seem like a fundamental point to me. It would be easy to imagine a
setup where you have to pay to download a tarball from the
"authorized" distributor (just as you can buy a binary at, I dunno,
adobe.com (to pick a name at random)) of a software package. They
could then essentially grant you most of the rights of the artistic
license: you could look at the code, modify for your own use, and even
redistribute _provided_ you keep all copyright notices intact and
change the name of the thing in some obvious way.

Of course the "why buy the milk when you can get (access to) the cow
free" argument is often raised at this point: why would users pay for
software that they could get (possibly modified but) free from other
users/developers? Well, there's no guarantee they will, but if a) you
maintain your package better/faster than third party developers, you
should be able to keep a reputation of having the "definitive" source
so to speak; and b) if developers can be encouraged to feel loyalty to
you (e.g. by your track record for responding to bug reports /
suggested patches etc.), they might be more likely to submit a patch
through legitimate channels than fork your product and start
redistributing it.

Please note I am NOT advocating that Sun should open-source java. I
have no opinion on that issue, and just wanted to comment on the
broader ones raised above.

--
Cheers,
Darrin

POOP wrote:

I thought the point of Java was cross platform compatibility. With that in
mind imagine what hundreds of forked Java variants would do to this
picture.

It would also relegitimize Microsoft's special embraced and extended Java
edition that Sun got so upset about.

Open-source Flash anyone?

Styvaen.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:43:55 +0000, Styvaen wrote:

You wouldn't have language variants.

And any way, if there were, that would be a way for Sun to make money and
be OSS at the same time -- by selling a /standard/ JVM.

--
W '04 <:> Open Source