What is Digg?38 Comments
- Superman101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22But the solaris license gives Sun more control over their product. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing for Java because it will hopefully prevent it from "splintering" into "minor, unsupported, incompatible versions".
Just because something doesn't read GPL doesn't mean its evil Micro$oft.... - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Just like what's happened with C, C++, Lisp, Perl, PHP, Haskell, C#, Objective C, and every other language with a free software compiler out there?
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16From the GPL zealots about Solaris license: "The license prohibits redistribution, prohibits commercial use of the software, and can be revoked."
That doesn't seems very free to me. - aptget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I'd love to see Sun's Java in Ubuntu's main repository, instead of (uni|multi)verse.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Thanks, Sun, the planet needed this
- adamlazz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Create open source Java, we must. Powerful, it will be.
--Simon Phipps as Yoda.
And he is right. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Indeed. That's where GCJ comes in. _Hopefully_ Sun will release Java under a license that's truly free software, negating the need for it. Or at least allowing it to integrate code from Sun's Java, so that we'll have a compiler that fully supports Sun's feature set, but lets you complie to native code and integrate with other languages (something GCJ does, and Sun's Java doesn't)
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Wrong. I'm assuming by "GPL Zealots," you mean free software advocates. We're happy with any license that is free, that is, that guarantees the four freedoms. If Sun can come up with its own license that meets them all, that's fine. If it wants to use the GPL, or the LGPL, or a permissive BSD license, or a copyleft BSD license, or the MIT license, that's all fine as well--they're all free. But if what they make is "Open Source," but not actually free software, all it will mean is that people will be confused into thinking that Java is free software, use it for more free software projects, and it will become more and more difficult to use only free software. But then again, I guess that's what gcj is for...
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Because the whole point of J9 and Kaffe are to be compatible. The only party ever to try to "splinter" Java is Microsoft, and I don't think anyone cares what Microsoft might try to do to Java anymore.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Hope they will pick a compatible* license, not like they did with Solaris.
(*compatible with other free licenses) - dotuplink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6System.out.println("woot!");
- ToddFFW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6as long as an implementation properly implements the specification, everything should work. Imagine if C was controlled by a single entity? It would never be where it is today.
- a1programmer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Dude, there's much more to Java than a VM...
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Open source != free. In fact, merely viewing the source could legally taint your contributions to FOSS. The biggest open source "target" is Linux, which is GPL. Using any other license (particularly GPL-incompatible licenses) is nearly pointless, unless you're planning on developing a totally different OS and environment from scratch. A pseudo-free open source release hardly provides any benefit to people, except the idly curious or people who want to know why their specific application isn't working properly. The latter is just enrolling suckers to develop/alpha-test the company's software for them, which is what Sun is really up to.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Besides it's not about being GPL zealot, it's about efficiency. Why invent yet another license that's not compatible with GPL and thus the programs cannot be used in GPL project. That's plain stupid even if you don't care about GPL politics.
- anon52, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@bieber
I'm such a newbie (and may lack certain brain functions that recognize sarcasm) that I hope you are arguing FOR releasing into the OS. While I've seen lots of variants on many of the languages that you mention, most have been constrained by standards organizations (IEEE, etc.), or communities-of-practice, that gross deviations are dealt with in the darwinian fashion: You may live for awhile, but if you ain't productive, you die. - pgouy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Can't decide how good or bad for Java this will be in the long run.
Let's just hope the community can fix some of the known Java issues... - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If what you just said is true, that means freedoms 0, 2, and 3 just went out the window if such a license is used for Java. 1 out of 4 aint that bad, is it?
- mdoverkill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why would you expect Sun to disappoint? They said they would open source Solaris right?
www.opensolaris.org
Open sourcing a proprietary product isn't something that is going to happen over night. Give them time. I'd rather have them take their time and do it right like they did with Solaris then try and rush it out to door just to get it out there. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They have backed tracked on this so many times before, so I will believe it when I see it. Besides which Sun's interpretation of 'open source' is pretty radically different from the rest of the world's definition.
We have all been here before. I think we can expect Sun to disappoint. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I have a very bad feeling that Sun will end up using a license that restricts or eliminates freedom number 3 (the right to redistribute modified copies of the software), thus making it "Open Source," but not free software. Then, people start using it, thinking "Oh, it's open source," not realizing that they're still putting their software off-limits to users of free software...
- useruser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Remind me again why this won't splinter a stable, usable language into dozens of minor, unsupported, incompatible versions?
- ZenMasterJG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Am i the only one scared by the phrase "Open Source Version"?
I'll believe it when I see it, but I don't think I'll be seeing it anytime soon. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sun would do very well do something like rolling Solaris into Debian. That is, make Solaris an alternate kernel , the way the Gnu Hurd is, in theory, and BSD kernels are incrreasingly in fact.
The whole GNU/Linux distribution process hasn't been really fully exploited yet. If properly developed, it could become a very nice way of delivering multiple meaningful variants on a compatible platform. - Jinx101, on 10/23/2008, -0/+0"- In order to use codeplex you have to use a ton of proprietary tools"
You flat out incorrect on the above statement. First, you don't have to use proprietary tools to use CodePlex. There ARE proprietary tools you can use but there are multiple ways to use the free source control including open source version control clients and command line tools (If you would have bothered to look before knocking the site you would have known that). - pyalot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 - codeplex is *not* new
- codeplex is not about sharing (obviously)
- In order to use codeplex you have to use a ton of proprietary tools
- Codeplex itself is not opensource
- Codeplex is not self hosted
- Codeplex is a lame and screwed up rippoff of sf.net and Trac
And, to top it off, There have been numerous stories popping up about codeplex. It feels like M$ spams digg. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It could be done today. Just publish all the source code files as they are.
The end. - Sp1k3d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll believe it when I see it! This is just a bait and switch trick, first they say the GPL is "on the table" to get community support, then they quietly release it several months later under the CDDL
- rover, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Actually you can commercially redistribute any part of Solaris that you want with your own proprietary source files and you won't have to release your source code if it doesn't use CDDL sources (contrary to GPL). Changes to CDDL sources do have to be released though you can license the binaries under a different license (GPL does not like this). Sun guarantees not to claim any patent infringement on any CDDL code and if you try to claim patent infringement on your CDDL code then your license is revoked (GPL does not like this either). Not a bad license for Solaris. See http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/
- digjedi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Sun is looking at this last gasp to save Java. They had their chance and blew it and hoping the OS community will revive it.
- Celeron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I was just over by Sun today after visiting the Intel Museum here in Santa Clara.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5The only license that is "incompatible" with SCSL is the GPL. Of course, GPL zealots are all for open-source software, just as long as it is either 1) GPL, or 2) legal to take the code and make it GPL. When Sun comes along and puts their source out in the open, it's "just not good enough" since GPL'ed projects can't siphon off Sun's IP under the license that they prefer.
- MoeB, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Thats horrible, think about how many implementations of java could exist. Nothing would work.
- adamlazz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2COMMENT DUPE!
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2This is great news. Now maybe there's a chance I can run java on my computer and not have it behave like a 386-SX33 with 16 mb of ram trying to run XP.
- lefthandedlinux, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Sun Microsystems flip/flops more than a caught fish on a boat deck, i will believe it when i see it, http://www.kaffe.org/
- lefthandedlinux, on 10/12/2007, -14/+0Sun Microsystems flip/flops more than a caught fish on a boat deck, i will believe it when i see it, http://www.kaffe.org/
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is