Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on May 14, 2005 10:02 PM
> Well that's nice, but it seems that the "lockin" which got argued over on the OO thread...
The so-called "lock-in" that was discussed was a concern that the OpenOffice developers might accidentally use Java features that were available in Sun's Java implementation, which had not yet been implemented in an Open Source Java, such as GCJ.
It turned out, of course, that the whole thing was a panic over nothing, as the OpenOffice developers were already taking steps to ensure that any Java used in OpenOffice would also work with GCJ.
><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Is being unable to fork any time you don't like what so and so has done.
Which is not the case here. All OpenOffice code, including any Java, is available under the LGPL license, and is thus forkable.
Likewise, Java, the language, is forkable. GCJ, JBoss, Chai, and so on, are all forks, to greater or lesser degrees, of the Java language.
The only thing that is not forkable is the source code for Sun's _implementation_ of Java. And, as I said, work was already underway to ensure that OpenOffice was not dependent on using Sun's Java implementation.
> A favoured tactic in OSS.
I wouldn't say that. In fact, lock-in goes against OSS, both in philosophy and in practice.
Now there are some companies that use Open Source, or even Free software as a cover, while locking-in commercial (non-GPL) developers with a proprietary license. One example would be Trolltech, which releases Qt under both a GPL and a proprietary license.
> Plus not being able to call your fork "Java".
Big deal! JBoss is a somewhat-incompatible fork, which prevents them from calling themselves Java, but that hasn't stop them from succeeding. Likewise, HP's Chai is a fork of Java.
Similarly, X.org couldn't call themselves XFree86, yet that did little to slow the transition. In fact, it helped to make it clear to people that a fork was occurring, and to highlight the reasons for that fork.
> The licenses don't have anything to worry about, because they're buying more than just a language.
Correct. The licensees are buying more than just a language. They are also buying Sun's certification.
But Sun's certification only has value as long as Sun is trusted as an authority on ensuring Java compatibility.
And that's one of the reasons for Microsoft's astroturf campaign against Sun and Java. Microsoft wants to weaken the trust in Sun, thus reducing the value of Java certifications, and cutting off one of Sun's sources of revenue. Microsoft also hopes to weaken support for Java, in order to give<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net a better chance of succeeding.
> But as MS demonstrated. A language backed by consistency, enforced by a legal structure. Something OSS doesn't have.
All of that is wrong, of course. But thank you for revealing whose side you're on.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:A Pure Java.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 14, 2005 10:02 PMThe so-called "lock-in" that was discussed was a concern that the OpenOffice developers might accidentally use Java features that were available in Sun's Java implementation, which had not yet been implemented in an Open Source Java, such as GCJ.
It turned out, of course, that the whole thing was a panic over nothing, as the OpenOffice developers were already taking steps to ensure that any Java used in OpenOffice would also work with GCJ.
><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Is being unable to fork any time you don't like what so and so has done.
Which is not the case here. All OpenOffice code, including any Java, is available under the LGPL license, and is thus forkable.
Likewise, Java, the language, is forkable. GCJ, JBoss, Chai, and so on, are all forks, to greater or lesser degrees, of the Java language.
The only thing that is not forkable is the source code for Sun's _implementation_ of Java. And, as I said, work was already underway to ensure that OpenOffice was not dependent on using Sun's Java implementation.
> A favoured tactic in OSS.
I wouldn't say that. In fact, lock-in goes against OSS, both in philosophy and in practice.
Now there are some companies that use Open Source, or even Free software as a cover, while locking-in commercial (non-GPL) developers with a proprietary license. One example would be Trolltech, which releases Qt under both a GPL and a proprietary license.
> Plus not being able to call your fork "Java".
Big deal! JBoss is a somewhat-incompatible fork, which prevents them from calling themselves Java, but that hasn't stop them from succeeding. Likewise, HP's Chai is a fork of Java.
Similarly, X.org couldn't call themselves XFree86, yet that did little to slow the transition. In fact, it helped to make it clear to people that a fork was occurring, and to highlight the reasons for that fork.
> The licenses don't have anything to worry about, because they're buying more than just a language.
Correct. The licensees are buying more than just a language. They are also buying Sun's certification.
But Sun's certification only has value as long as Sun is trusted as an authority on ensuring Java compatibility.
And that's one of the reasons for Microsoft's astroturf campaign against Sun and Java. Microsoft wants to weaken the trust in Sun, thus reducing the value of Java certifications, and cutting off one of Sun's sources of revenue. Microsoft also hopes to weaken support for Java, in order to give<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net a better chance of succeeding.
> But as MS demonstrated. A language backed by consistency, enforced by a legal structure. Something OSS doesn't have.
All of that is wrong, of course. But thank you for revealing whose side you're on.
#