Comments on: Sun tries sharing Java again; still not open source

"GlassFish" lets outsiders tinker with Java server source code but stops well short of making it actual open-source software.

[vocaro]

Why the double standard?

Every article about Sun of late has to throw in some backhanded
comment about Java not being open-source. It seems like there
is a double standard at CNET: Sun is at fault for not making their
product open-source, but for other companies, that's okay. Just
once I would like to see an article here with a headline like,
"Microsoft releases SP3; Windows still not open-source". Sure, I
would love for Java to be open-source, but let's be fair. Sun has
gone far beyond most companies in opening their source code.
They do not deserve headlines like this, which seems intended
merely to stir up controversy, using sensationalism to make the
author's story sound more interesting than it really is.

My thoughts exactly

I was about to make a comment about Sun, Java, and Open Source, but it appears that someone else shares my sentiments and has already responded. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Harmon!

I also believe that Java wouldn't be where it is today without Sun sheperding it as they've done. I only hope they can stick to their guns and keep control, or we're going to end up with 15 flavors of Java like we have with Linux. It seems to me that the people that want to make money off of Sun's work are the one's complaining the loudest about Java not being open-sourced, not the other way around.

Jay

[Andrew J Glina]

You make a good point

It is points like this that keep me reading these forums. Sun released Solaris as open source and they did not recieve enought points for doing so. Java, like most computer languages, is better left under the firm control of one body. Since Sun created Java they should be able to do with it what they want.

You HAVE to be kidding me

A) Microsoft doesn't have an open-source program but it does at least have a program where it shares windows source with other companies; and

B) Just about every CNET article about Microsoft has some backhanded comment in it about security or some disparaging remarks on people's blogs about their products.

CNET is way more biased against MS than it is Sun. Gimme a break already.

[vocaro]

Why the double standard?

Every article about Sun of late has to throw in some backhanded
comment about Java not being open-source. It seems like there
is a double standard at CNET: Sun is at fault for not making their
product open-source, but for other companies, that's okay. Just
once I would like to see an article here with a headline like,
"Microsoft releases SP3; Windows still not open-source". Sure, I
would love for Java to be open-source, but let's be fair. Sun has
gone far beyond most companies in opening their source code.
They do not deserve headlines like this, which seems intended
merely to stir up controversy, using sensationalism to make the
author's story sound more interesting than it really is.

My thoughts exactly

I was about to make a comment about Sun, Java, and Open Source, but it appears that someone else shares my sentiments and has already responded. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Harmon!

I also believe that Java wouldn't be where it is today without Sun sheperding it as they've done. I only hope they can stick to their guns and keep control, or we're going to end up with 15 flavors of Java like we have with Linux. It seems to me that the people that want to make money off of Sun's work are the one's complaining the loudest about Java not being open-sourced, not the other way around.

Jay

[Andrew J Glina]

You make a good point

It is points like this that keep me reading these forums. Sun released Solaris as open source and they did not recieve enought points for doing so. Java, like most computer languages, is better left under the firm control of one body. Since Sun created Java they should be able to do with it what they want.

You HAVE to be kidding me

A) Microsoft doesn't have an open-source program but it does at least have a program where it shares windows source with other companies; and

B) Just about every CNET article about Microsoft has some backhanded comment in it about security or some disparaging remarks on people's blogs about their products.

CNET is way more biased against MS than it is Sun. Gimme a break already.

[gfsdfge]

Face it, Sun is a hardware company

Always was, always will be. It will slowly die as a hardware company. It will be a great loss.
I hope IBM buys Java and keeps it proprietary so it doesn't splinter. That would fulfill M$ dreams.

[gfsdfge]

Face it, Sun is a hardware company

Always was, always will be. It will slowly die as a hardware company. It will be a great loss.
I hope IBM buys Java and keeps it proprietary so it doesn't splinter. That would fulfill M$ dreams.

[shreeg]

Why not ask IBM to open source

Double standards at best. Journalistic values at the lowest. Balance of analysis tilted against Sun. Typical of this author's articles in the past. Why not write about IBM's not open sourcing Websphere products? Why not write about BEA not open sourcing their Web Logic products ? Why quote a competitor's viewpoint that was expressed in his blog, in a news item.

The author also mixes two different technologies Java and J2EE. Does Glassfish project apply to J2EE or Java ? Not clear from the story. If it is J2EE, then why talk about open sourcing Java here. If it is Java, when why talk about J2EE server market shares, etc.

In short,this sound more like a blog of the confused than a reporter's balanced report on a development. Who wants the author's opinion on this?

[Bill Dautrive]

How is Java and J2EE different?

They are not. Java is a language and a JVM, which of course executes java programs.

J2EE is an API for Java. It has all the classes, interfaces, and everything else of J2SE(a more basic API with IO, networking, applets, GUIs, math,ect), plus a bunch of other packages for web servers and enterprise development. Both J2SE and J2EE, and the other parts(J2ME Java Card, ect) are all Java. They are all based on the same Java core.

I am glad that Sun is retaining control on Java. Every language needs a base group to keep it from losing focus. Anyone can extend the Java API's and add pretty much what they want already. Fracturing java will help no one, and weaken the language. I do hope that Sun because more responsive to developers. I personally wish they would add native compilation support(but keep the JVM), and operator overloading. I think that would add a lot to the language and its desirablility.

[shreeg]

Why not ask IBM to open source

Double standards at best. Journalistic values at the lowest. Balance of analysis tilted against Sun. Typical of this author's articles in the past. Why not write about IBM's not open sourcing Websphere products? Why not write about BEA not open sourcing their Web Logic products ? Why quote a competitor's viewpoint that was expressed in his blog, in a news item.

The author also mixes two different technologies Java and J2EE. Does Glassfish project apply to J2EE or Java ? Not clear from the story. If it is J2EE, then why talk about open sourcing Java here. If it is Java, when why talk about J2EE server market shares, etc.

In short,this sound more like a blog of the confused than a reporter's balanced report on a development. Who wants the author's opinion on this?

[Bill Dautrive]

How is Java and J2EE different?

They are not. Java is a language and a JVM, which of course executes java programs.

J2EE is an API for Java. It has all the classes, interfaces, and everything else of J2SE(a more basic API with IO, networking, applets, GUIs, math,ect), plus a bunch of other packages for web servers and enterprise development. Both J2SE and J2EE, and the other parts(J2ME Java Card, ect) are all Java. They are all based on the same Java core.

I am glad that Sun is retaining control on Java. Every language needs a base group to keep it from losing focus. Anyone can extend the Java API's and add pretty much what they want already. Fracturing java will help no one, and weaken the language. I do hope that Sun because more responsive to developers. I personally wish they would add native compilation support(but keep the JVM), and operator overloading. I think that would add a lot to the language and its desirablility.

[shreeg]

Glassfish is opensource

Released under CDDL, Glassfish project is opensource. I think the headline should change with an update.

[Shankland]

reporter responds: It was open-sourced 6 days after this story posted

It's true that GlassFish is now released under the CDDL. However, we published our GlassFish story June 21, and Sun didn't release it under the CDDL until June 27, at which point we wrote a separate story (http://news.com.com/Sun+faces+open-source+swarm/2100-7344_3-5761475.html).

--sts

[shreeg]

Glassfish is opensource

Released under CDDL, Glassfish project is opensource. I think the headline should change with an update.

[Shankland]

reporter responds: It was open-sourced 6 days after this story posted

It's true that GlassFish is now released under the CDDL. However, we published our GlassFish story June 21, and Sun didn't release it under the CDDL until June 27, at which point we wrote a separate story (http://news.com.com/Sun+faces+open-source+swarm/2100-7344_3-5761475.html).

--sts

Factually in Error

The ARTICLE itself is factually in error.

Project GlassFish *is* open source, released under the COMMON
DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL) Version 1.0.

It is project Mustang, i.e. Java SE 6, which is being released
under the Java Research License (JRL).

Don?t your authors research their stories? Your author is either
just sloppy or is purposely deceitful.

Also, GlassFish is now a direct competitor to JBoss, so of course
Mark Fleury, the President of JBoss, would try to disparage it
with such insightful comments as "However, the truth is that it is
irrelevant what kind of licenses they use since the whole thing is
irrelevant anyway."

I guess "irrelevant" is Mark's vocabulary word for the day. In
more ways than one.

Rob Ross

[Shankland]

reporter responds: It's not wrong; Sun changed the license

In case anyone missed my other reply on this subject, GlassFish was released under the JRL at the time we published this story, June 21. It's now indeed under the CDDL. We wrote a separate story (http://news.com.com/Sun+faces+open-source+swarm/2100-7344_3-5761475.html) about the CDDL move when that happened.

--sts

Factually in Error

The ARTICLE itself is factually in error.

Project GlassFish *is* open source, released under the COMMON
DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL) Version 1.0.

It is project Mustang, i.e. Java SE 6, which is being released
under the Java Research License (JRL).

Don?t your authors research their stories? Your author is either
just sloppy or is purposely deceitful.

Also, GlassFish is now a direct competitor to JBoss, so of course
Mark Fleury, the President of JBoss, would try to disparage it
with such insightful comments as "However, the truth is that it is
irrelevant what kind of licenses they use since the whole thing is
irrelevant anyway."

I guess "irrelevant" is Mark's vocabulary word for the day. In
more ways than one.

Rob Ross

[Shankland]

reporter responds: It's not wrong; Sun changed the license

In case anyone missed my other reply on this subject, GlassFish was released under the JRL at the time we published this story, June 21. It's now indeed under the CDDL. We wrote a separate story (http://news.com.com/Sun+faces+open-source+swarm/2100-7344_3-5761475.html) about the CDDL move when that happened.

--sts

[RationalPi]

IBM Still Closed Source and Criticizing Sun

IBM has yet to open source Lotus, Rational, Tivoli, WebSphere or
tons of their other software products. Sun has made much larger
contributions (Solaris, Glassfish, the JCP, Open Office, even chip
designs for upcoming Sparc chips) to open source than IBM and
still has to put up with IBM's criticism. The source for Java is all
available to be seen by anyone who cares to register and it's free
for anyone who wants to use it. The only thing that IBM is really
concerned about is that Sun still holds claim to the name Java so
that people can't fragment it like Microsoft tried to in the past.
That irks IBM. Tough luck. The community is much better off for
the stewardship that Sun provides and the Java Community
Process is one of the largest thriving open source communities
in existence. It's time for IBM to start open sourcing their own
software line and quite their complaining.

[RationalPi]

IBM Still Closed Source and Criticizing Sun

IBM has yet to open source Lotus, Rational, Tivoli, WebSphere or
tons of their other software products. Sun has made much larger
contributions (Solaris, Glassfish, the JCP, Open Office, even chip
designs for upcoming Sparc chips) to open source than IBM and
still has to put up with IBM's criticism. The source for Java is all
available to be seen by anyone who cares to register and it's free
for anyone who wants to use it. The only thing that IBM is really
concerned about is that Sun still holds claim to the name Java so
that people can't fragment it like Microsoft tried to in the past.
That irks IBM. Tough luck. The community is much better off for
the stewardship that Sun provides and the Java Community
Process is one of the largest thriving open source communities
in existence. It's time for IBM to start open sourcing their own
software line and quite their complaining.