IBM cool to Sun's open-source Java plan

In a bit of irony, it looks like IBM (who has been trying to get Sun to Open Source Java for years) isn't that happy with the GPL. From the article:
After years of internal debates and public calls from IBM to make Java open source, you would think that IBM would be overjoyed at the news.
Not so.
IBM on Monday issued a statement attributed to Rod Smith, vice president of emerging Internet technologies in the IBM Software Group, who penned the open letter in 2004 requesting Sun to make Java open source.
Smith said that IBM supports all open-source licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). But he noted that there are already two projects around open-source Java.
There is Harmony, a project in the incubator phase at Apache to build an open-source edition of Java SE. IBM joined the Harmony project shortly after it was launched in 2005.
Meanwhile, Motorola two weeks ago said that it will contribute code to start a Java ME project at Apache .
“In light of the Apache projects, we have discussed with Sun our strong belief that Sun should contribute their Java technologies to Apache rather than starting another open-source Java project, or at least make their contributions available under an 'Apache friendly' license to ensure the open-source Java community isn't fragmented and disenfranchised, instead Sun would be bringing the same benefits of OS (open-source) Java to this significant and growing open-source community,” the statement said.

Just goes to show that you really can't make everyone happy. Overall the Open Source community seems quite happy with the GPL decision. I haven't yet had the time to look deep into the Java community reaction, but I do plan to. I'd guess that despite this initial reaction, IBM will likely become more involved as time goes on. What exactly will happen to projects like Harmony remains to be seen.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

An LQ Stats Update – 2.5 Million Posts

2,500,000
That's how many posts we have at LQ now. Wow. Rounding out the stats for those interested, we are just shy of 500,000 threads and have well over 275,000 registered members. I'd like to thank each and every member for making LQ what it is. Without the members, we'd be nothing. The phenomenal mod team has also been a huge part of our success. I look forward to the first billion and remain dedicated to ensuring that LQ is a friendly and active atmosphere for discussing all things Open Source. As always, if you have feedback on the site don't hesitate to let me know.
–jeremy

Sun Open Sources Java under the GPL

Well, it's official and the rumors were true. Sun has released Java under the GPL. From the press release:
Santa Clara-based Sun said it is making nearly all of Java's source code – excluding small pockets of code that aren't owned by Sun – available under the GNU General Public License. The same type of license also covers the distribution of the core, or kernel, of the popular open-source operating system Linux, which competes against Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system.
All the Java source code is expected to be released by March 2007, Green said. The move covers all Java technology, which includes software that runs on handheld devices, personal computers and servers.

As I mentioned previously, I guessed that this would be released under the CDDL (as did many others). Sun is sending a huge message by using the GPL here. They have been supporters of Open Source for a while, but their occasional waffling really tarnished their rep in the Open Source community. I hope this move serves to get them the recognition they deserve. Of course, I hope it also helps them prosper, which will further serve to solidify Open Source in the enterprise and commercial worlds.
You may be interested in what this release actually covers. It's stock GPL2 for J2SE, J2ME, and J2EE code and then GPL2 + Classpath exception for the SE libraries. This basically means you are still 100% free to write closed source commercial applications that run in the Java VM. So what are the repercussions of this? First, being able to yum install java or apt-get install java will be really nice. That's just a small bit though. I'd guess Sun will dual license the code for those who are interested, so I'd not expect their direct bottom line to change immediately. That being said, I'd expect uptake of Java to increase substantially. It already powers a huge array of devices, but I'd expect that to increase dramatically. In the end, that's good for Sun. I'd also expect the number of Open Source projects that use Java to sky rocket. Sun will get the bits of innovation back for use, developer concerns over the license is gone and the JCP still controls the direction of Java. In the end, Sun still gets to decide what “Java” is (remember, you can fork without issue, but you can't call that fork “Java”). Moving out longer term is a little tougher, but I'm extremely interested in watching this one progress. For instance, what will the impact on the uptake of .NET be?
I find it intriguing to see that Jonathan Schwartz admitted that the recent Microsoft Novell deal did impact this decision. From that linked post:
And in closing, I want to put one nagging item to rest.
By admitting that one of the strongest motivations to select the GPL was the announcement made last week by Novell and Microsoft, suggesting that free and open source software wasn't safe unless a royalty was being paid. As an executive from one of those companies said, “free has to have a price.”
That's nonsense.
Free software can be free of royalties, and free of impediments to broadscale, global adoption and deployment. Witness what we've done with Solaris, and now, what we've done with Java. Developers are free to pick up the code, and create derivatives. Without royalty or obligation.
Those that say open source software can't be safe for customers – or that commercially indemnified software can't foster community – are merely advancing their own agenda. Without any basis in fact.
They're also fighting a rising tide.

To me, that means the CDDL may very well have been the leading candidate before the MSFT/NOVL deal. A bit of a silver lining there. To me though it also means that we may have a new Sun on our hands. One that has been forming for a while, but has finally got the conviction it needs to compete.
Here some additional reading material that I highly suggest if this topic interests you:
James Gosling
Tim Bray
Alan Hargreaves
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Samba Team Asks Novell to Reconsider

More on a story I have been closely watching, it looks like the Samba team has officially requested that Novell reconsider the recent patent agreement they made with Microsoft. From the Samba site:
The Samba Team disapproves strongly of the actions taken by Novell on November 2nd.
One of the fundamental differences between the proprietary software world and the free software world is that the proprietary software world divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other, whereas the free software world encourages users to unite and share the benefits of the software.
The patent agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft is a divisive agreement. It deals with users and creators of free software differently depending on their “commercial” versus “non-commercial” status, and deals with them differently depending on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell or from someone else.
The goals of the Free Software community and the GNU GPL allow for no such distinctions.
Furthermore, the GPL makes it clear that all distributors of GPL'd software must stand together in the fight against software patents. Only by standing together do we stand a chance of defending against the peril represented by software patents. With this agreement Novell is attempting to destroy that unified defense, exchanging the long term interests of the entire Free Software community for a short term advantage for Novell over their competitors.
For Novell to make this deal shows a profound disregard for the relationship that they have with the Free Software community. We are, in essence, their suppliers, and Novell should know that they have no right to make self serving deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community.
Using patents as competitive tools in the free software world is not acceptable. Novell, as a participant in numerous debates, discussions and conferences on the topic knew this to be the case. We call upon Novell to work with the Software Freedom Law Center to undo the patent agreement and acknowledge its obligations as a beneficiary of the Free Software community.

I've also seen multiple sites around the net requesting a full boycott of Novell products. Novell had to see this (or at least some level of community dissent) coming. The question to them may have been whether they'd lose enough business to prevent the deal from being profitable on the whole. Regardless of the legality of the patent deal (I've still seen no official word from the FSF of the Section 7 issue, but Eben Moglen has been granted confidential access to the legal terms of the agreement, in order to scrutinize it and ensure its compliance with the GPL), Novell has clearly gone against the sentiment of the community here and the spirit of the GPL. What long term implications that will have remains to be seen. One shouldn't forget that Novell really isn't an Open Source company in the same way that a company like Red Hat is. Novell still has a lot of proprietary software, sure; but the issue goes much deeper than that. They have a long history as a closed source company and a lot of long time employees who aren't necessarily Open Source people. It comes down to being a systemic cultural thing. While they have many people who really get it, that's not necessarily the case for the average employee. Coupled with the fact that Novell has a long history with Microsoft and I don't find this deal as surprising as some. Do I think Novell will back out of the deal at this point? Unlikely, but it will be interesting to see their response if Eben decides they've violated the GPL. I'd guess we'll know soon.
–jeremy
, , , , , , ,

Adobe releases the source for its ActionScript Virtual Machine to the Mozilla Foundation

From Penguin.SWF:
Today, Adobe released the source for its ActionScript Virtual Machine to the Mozilla Foundation.
That's what Adobe did. Since this blog is a common stop for open source-minded folk, I thought it might be pertinent to use this space to discuss what Adobe didn't do:
* Adobe did not open source the Flash Player.
* Adobe did not incorporate the Flash Player into Mozilla.
* Adobe did not license Mozilla's HTML rendering engine.
* Adobe did not purchase Mozilla, or vice versa.

The new project will be called Tamarin and will be hosted by Mozilla. From the FAQ:
The goal of the “Tamarin” project is to implement a high-performance, open source implementation of the ECMAScript 4th edition (ES4) language specification. The Tamarin virtual machine will be used by Mozilla within SpiderMonkey, the core JavaScript engine embedded in Firefox, and other products based on Mozilla technology. The code will continue to be used by Adobe as part of the ActionScript Virtual Machine within Adobe Flash Player.
So, what does this mean? Basically, “ActionScript” is based on the ECMAScript language specification which is also the base of JavaScript. With the release of Flash 9 (beta now available for Linux) Flash now uses the ActionScript Virtual Machine to interpret ActionScript in a JIT manner. It's that bit of code that has been Open Sourced and donated to Mozilla. The Tamarin code will be now included within SpiderMonkey, the open source C-based JavaScript engine used by Firefox and other applications based on Mozilla technology. In the end the benefits of this should be significant (although a ways off). Javascript should be much faster and memory efficient once this is integrated, which means AJAX applications will be able to do things that aren't viable right now. Additionally, since much of Firefox itself is in XUL, this could even mean that Firefox itself gets a performance boost. Additionally, from a mindshare perspective this is the largest code contribution that Mozilla has ever received. That goes a long way. Further versions of Tamarin will be shared by both Flash and Firefox, with no fork between the two planned. With no real downside, this announcement should gain Adobe some points in the community, which they need. I suspect this isn't the last time Adobe warms up to the Open Source world. From what I've seen recently they have some pretty large aspirations and Open Source will aide them in much of what I think they want to accomplish.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Is Microsoft Going to Start a Linux War?

On the topic of misunderstanding the GPL, we have this doozy. From the article:
Microsoft has been leery of doing too much with Linux because of all the weirdness with the licenses and the possibility that one false move would make a Microsoft product public domain at worst, or subject to the GPL at best. As far as old-school software companies are concerned, the GPL—the GNU General Public License—is a ridiculous pain to deal with, especially if you have a unique invention that you want to bring to the party—and want to make money doing so.
Sharp operators have been playing with various ways to avoid bumping into the GPL while using Linux in proprietary applications.

Huh? How are we still running into things like this? For better or worse, a ton of proprietary code runs on Linux in a 100% legal and legitimate manner. Just ask Oracle or BEA or Veritas. I'm not sure where this misconception comes from, but we need to get rid of it. Porting your app to Linux in no way puts your application at risk of becoming GPL'd. As to where the “public domain” assertion came from, I won't even venture a guess. As for the “unique invention that you want to bring to the party”, plenty of companies have innovated, used an Open Source license and made money. Sleepycat and Innobase are two examples of innovative companies (neither really have any competition in their space even today) that used Open Source licenses exclusively, became very profitable businesses and then were seen as so good that a proprietary company acquired them and then kept them Open. There are many other examples of companies that are staying independent and making good money doing so. I've said it at least once before, but I'd really like it if the GPL had a Creative Commons style “human-readable summary”. It could go a long way toward clearing up some of these consistent misunderstandings.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Sun Set To Move On GPL License For Open-Source Java

I looks like I may have been wrong when I said that the license for Java would probably be the CDDL. Much to my surprise, it looks like Sun will be releasing it under the GPL. From the article:
Sun Microsystems has talked a lot about putting Java into an open-source license. Now it's ready to move.
The company is very close to announcing that it will put the mobile (ME) and standard (SE) editions of the Java platform into the GNU General Public License (GPL), with the Java Enterprise Edition and GlassFish reference implementation (currently open-sourced under Sun's Common Development and Distribution License, or CDDL) to follow, several industry sources said.

So it would appear that both the J2ME and J2SE platforms will be released under the GPL. In a recent poll the most requested license by developers was the Apache license (a BSD derivative), but to be fair the comments show a fundamental lack of understanding about the GPL in a couple respects. In general, GPL misunderstandings seem to be fairly common and the cause of a lot of developer concern. When (if?) this announcement is made official, it will be interesting to see how the java developer community reacts. As for the actual license choice, I think it makes sense in a lot of regards. The GPL will prevent any closed source commercial forks and the trademark will give Sun full control of what is called “Java”. It will protect them from the embrace and extend tactic that has been tried before. Additionally, I'd guess they will dual license (a la MySQL AB) which could help add more revenue to the bottom line. If the license is indeed GPL I'd expect fairly quick uptake by the various Linux distributions. I'll post another update, including community response, after we get the official word from Sun.
–jeremy
, , ,

Novell and Microsoft Collaborate III

Some additional information has been released since my last post on this topic, in the form of an 8-K filing from Novell. From the filing:
On November 2, 2006, Novell, Inc. (“Novell”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) announced that they had entered into a Business Collaboration Agreement, a Technical Collaboration Agreement, and a Patent Cooperation Agreement. This set of broad business and technical collaboration agreements is designed to build, market and support a series of new solutions to make Novell and Microsoft products work better together for customers.
Under the Business Collaboration Agreement, which expires January 1, 2012, Novell and Microsoft will market a combined offering. The combined offering will consist of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (“SLES”) and a subscription for SLES support along with Microsoft Windows Server, Microsoft Virtual Server and Microsoft Viridian that will be offered to customers desiring to deploy Linux and Windows in a virtualized setting. Microsoft will make an upfront payment to Novell of $240 million for SLES subscription “certificates,” which Microsoft may use, resell or otherwise distribute over the term of the agreement, allowing the certificate holder to redeem single or multi-year subscriptions for SLES support from Novell (entitling the certificate holder to upgrades, updates and technical support). Microsoft will spend $12 million annually for marketing Linux and Windows virtualization scenarios and will also spend $34 million over the term of the agreement for a Microsoft sales force devoted primarily to marketing the combined offering. Microsoft agreed that for three years it will not enter into an agreement with any other Linux distributor to encourage adoption of non-Novell Linux/Windows Server virtualization through a program substantially similar to the SLES subscription “certificate” distribution program.
The Technical Collaboration Agreement, which also runs until January 1, 2012, focuses on three areas:
* Novell and Microsoft will develop technologies to optimize SLES and Windows running as guests on each other's operating systems.
* Novell and Microsoft will work together and with independent software vendors to develop management tools for managing heterogeneous virtualization environments, which will enable each party's management tools to command, control and configure the other party's operating system in a virtual machine environment.
* Novell and Microsoft will work together on ways to make translators available to improve interoperability between Office Open XML and OpenOffice formats.
Under the Patent Cooperation Agreement, Microsoft commits to a covenant not to assert its patents against Novell's end-user customers for their use of Novell products and services for which Novell receives revenue directly or indirectly from such customers, with certain exceptions, while Novell commits to a covenant not to assert its patents against Microsoft's end-user customers for their use of Microsoft products and services for which Microsoft receives revenue directly or indirectly from such customers, with certain exceptions. Both Microsoft and Novell have payment obligations under the Patent Cooperation Agreement. Microsoft will make an up-front net payment to Novell of $108 million, and Novell will make ongoing payments of at least $40 million over five years to Microsoft based on percentages of Novell's Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server revenues.

As you can see, quite a bit of money is flowing in from Microsoft to Novell. As this article points out, that money may be coming just in the nick of time:
This news comes just one day following rumors, still unconfirmed by Novell, that the Linux company had laid off some employees. In addition, Novell announced on Nov. 6, for the third time, that it was extending its deadline to get the holders of its Convertible Senior Debentures to not demand immediate payment of the total $600-million owed in 2024.
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. demanded the early payment in full when it claimed that Novell had defaulted on its payment agreement by not turning in its July 31 quarterly earnings report to the SEC in a timely fashion.
This, in turn, had been caused because Novell, like many other technology companies, has delayed its financial reports while it audits its past stock option practices.

It should also be noted that this does not appear to be a patent licensing agreement as some articles were calling it, but a revocable covenant not to sue. That's a big difference, but it's still unclear to me whether the agreement violates the GPL. I'd guess we'll hear more on that issue soon. In the end, on the Novell side this may have just been a move to keep the company going. It's harder to tell the motivation on the Microsoft side. It could be a way to incent Novell not to sue (which it looks like could have been a very real possibility on multiple fronts), it could be a play into a few new markets such as virtualization for Microsoft, it could be an attempt to subvert the Linux community or a variety of other things. I don't think it will be clear for a little while what the motivation(s) are, but as you may have guessed I'll be keeping my eye on this one.
–jeremy
, , , , , , ,

Is SugarCRM open source?

An interesting question that I haven't seen a lot of talk about. SugarCRM, the “Commercial Open Source” company, now uses a license that is not OSI approved. Basically, it's the MPL with this additional restriction:
Additional Terms applicable to the SugarCRM Public License.
I. Effect.
These additional terms described in this SugarCRM Public License � Additional Terms shall apply to the Covered Code under this License.
II. SugarCRM and logo.
This License does not grant any rights to use the trademarks “SugarCRM” and the “SugarCRM” logos even if such marks are included in the Original Code or Modifications.
However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must, as a form of attribution of the original author, include on each user interface screen (i) the “Powered by SugarCRM” logo and (ii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed by SugarCRM, Inc. at the time of distribution of such copy. In addition, the “Powered by SugarCRM” logo must be visible to all users and be located at the very bottom center of each user interface screen. Notwithstanding the above, the dimensions of the “Powered By SugarCRM” logo must be at least 106 x 23 pixels. When users click on the “Powered by SugarCRM” logo it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org. In addition, the copyright notice must remain visible to all users at all times at the bottom of the user interface screen. When users click on the copyright notice, it must direct them back to http://www.sugarcrm.com

Now, I have no idea why they insist on you keeping the “Powered by SugarCRM”logo and the mandatory link seems to be a bit much. They make a killer product that stands on its own, so personally I don't think they need to resort to things like this. That's not the question at hand though. Since that is definitely an additional restriction, should they still be calling it “Open Source”. Additionally, will the OSI respond. It's a tough call and one I've not come up with a firm opinion on yet. What do you think?
–jeremy
, , ,

Red Hat Response to Oracle and Microsoft/Novell Moves

Here's a response from Red Hat on the recent upheaval in the Linux world. My take? Half really good points, half disingenuous and/or ridiculous. First, the good points.
Last time I looked, we were still in ring, and we are still standing. The big mistakes companies and employees make is to be focused on stock price in the short-term.
Think back to the Microsoft/Sun announcement from a couple years ago, and today, you haven't seen any of the promised technical collaboration from that partnership whatsoever.
Novell has fallen into the trap of allowing Microsoft to do exactly what it wants to do, which is to trumpet IP (intellectual property) solutions and promises.

He's completely right. These days, far too many people focus on short term stock price. Vision and long term planning is almost a thing of the past. In the end, I think this will be the undoing of many companies – Open Source or not. Second, the highly touted and much hyped Microsoft/Sun announcement from a couple years ago didn't really create anything substantial that I can think of. Whether the Novell/Microsoft deal will bear more fruit remains to be seen, but they both sure did draw a lot of media attention. The last sentence I think speaks for itself.
On to the bad:
Having said that, does Red Hat think either of them has taken the right approach, now that Microsoft and Novell have made 'Microvell'?
We still believe that we will be the dominant player in the Linux market, because by that time there won't be any other Linux players. We will have succeeded once again.
This is not about IP. This is about the freedom to meet customer needs and to create competition. That problem is, you can be either for freedom and collaboration, or you can take a different approach. These companies are trying to do both. I can at least respect Microsoft, because they don't pretend to be an open source company.

The first sentence is a bit disingenuous. This was a partnership (and a loose one at that), not anything close to a merger that would warrant a 'Microvell' moniker. Stating they will be the “only” Linux player is odd on multiple levels. First, they have always claimed that not being the only vendor was one of the big advantages for Linux. Second, in what world will every other Linux player disappear in the next 365 days? I'm not sure where he was going with this one, but this is the kind of hubris that gets companies in trouble. The last one is a nice backhanded jab, but he should have just come out and said what he meant – in his opinion Novell isn't an Open Source company, even thought they claim to be.
I remain interested in how this will play out, not only for Red Hat and Novell; but for Linux in general. As you may have guessed, I'll keep you updated.
–jeremy
Red Hat, RHAT, Novell, Microsoft, Linux, Open Source
Edit: There is now also a more marketing slanted official response on the Red Hat site.