Re: JFORK: Or a reasonable response to the Sun SCSL
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:25:52PM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> Seth R Arnold Writes:
> > Chris, could you go into more detail why? I think the effort will be great,
> > and the returns might be small. (I am not sure it is worth it...)
> >
> > But, I think you are reading the idea of 'fork' incorrectly. It could be
> > that I am also incorrectly interpreting it... The way I saw Ean's proposal,
> > we would work on a free implementation based off of an earlier version of
> > JDK that allows forks -- and we would implement java exactly as the spec
> > suggests, keeping up with the changes to the sun jdk, and improving it where
> > we can -- *NOT* the language, but the JDK.
>
> After re-reading his message, he did not state what the "fork" would be.
> So, he would have to provide clarification himself.
>
> But I thought, his idea was, "because Java 2 is under SCSL ... lets try to
> come up with a very 'Java 2-like' specification and then implement a JVM,
> class libraries, etc. around it".
>
> I admit that his message did *NOT* state that, but it is what I thought
> he meant.
I felt like I was clear, but after rereading I'm not so sure. So let me
see if I can be a little more clear.
Sun has a number of different products and components that they distribute
under the brand "Java". Some components of this product suite are distributed
under fairly reasonable licenses that allow reimplementation and some are
distributed under more restrictive licenses. Recently, Sun has begun to
release progressively more critical components under a new license (SCSL)
which is not only incompatible with free software but is even dangerous
to the ability to produce it. The fact that their newest and most important
APIs are released under this license, combined with the considerable marketing
firepower they have put behind it, lead me to believe that it is not an
isolated phenomena but a strategy. The SCSL is Sun's strategy for the future
of the Java platform.
Suprisingly, Sun has been so effective in their process of marketing Java
that normally rational people who believe in the concept of open standards
have become absolutely convinced that the Java language should be controlled
almost absolutely by a single corporate entity. This is certainly far more
frightening than the Windows problem. If Sun succeeds in their attempt to
overthrow the Win32 API with Java then we will be left with a system that
is not only controlled completely by a corporation but is also distributed
under licensing terms that make implementing a free alternative impossible.
So, the concept I am suggesting is this. That we clone those interfaces
that are not covered under the SCSL (which has mostly been done, even to
the point of Java 1.2), but that we attempt to develop usable alternatives
(forks) of those technologies which are available exclusively under the
SCSL (such as Jini). I think that it would also be intelligent to fork
some APIs where Sun has obviously forked a pre-existing standard in their
own selfish interest, OpenGL being an obvious example.
Why will this convince Sun to back off of the SCSL? Well, if you publicize
the fact that the SCSL is bad but don't offer an alternative then you leave
companies with nowhere to turn. However, if you publicize the problems with
the SCSL and then outline a strategy for working around those problems you
give people something that they can act on. Beyond this, if you can provide
an alternative with useful features beyond what Sun has provided you may
have a real chance of creating some market pressure on Sun to do the
Right Thing(tm).
So, that is what I am thinking and believe me I have good reason to think
about it. I have implemented numerous large scale systems for customers in
Java since before 1.0.2. I deployed commercial systems running on Servlets
when it was still "Jeeves" and I had to use Jef Poskanzer's Acme.Serve
because Sun wouldn't allow the use of their beta code in a production effort.
I'm not just a Java newbie who is hoping to wrinkle Sun's nose. I have
personally conversed with John Gage, Bill Joy and Scott McNeally on these
and other free software related issues and I will tell you that we are not
their priority. The only reason that they give free software any respect
at all is because it has become apparent that the community can make them
feel pain when they get in our way. You need to analyze what is going on
with the SCSL, because it is a strategy to deprive us of our freedom.
--
___________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler An oderless programmer work-a-like
Novare International Inc. Silent and motionless
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke
Reply to: