Java IoT Authors: Tim Hinds, Elizabeth White, Yeshim Deniz, Liz McMillan, Pat Romanski

Related Topics: Linux Containers, Java IoT

Linux Containers: Article

If Sun Released Java Under an Open Source License, What Type of License Might It Use?

The Case for "Open Source/Closed Standards"

Related Links:
  • Red Hat Says Sun Should Open Source Java
  • Is "Free Software" Dead?
  • What's New Under the Sun? Sun's John Fowler talks to LinuxWorld Magazine

    There's been some debate recently on the license-discuss list hosted by the OSI on how to release code as open source while still requiring that it be compatible with a test suite that must be distributed as part of the code.

    The initial discussion was kicked off by Bob Scheifler of Sun Microsystems. Bob's original post was:

    "For my personal edification, and hoping this is an acceptable inquiry, I'd like to understand if and specifically how the following informal license sketch conflicts with the OSD. Any and all comments appreciated.

    1. The licensed work consists of source code, test suite in executable form, and test suite documentation.
    2. A derivative work in executable form that has passed the unmodified test suite can be distributed under a license of your choosing.
    3. Any other derivative work can only be distributed under this license.

    Any such distribution must include the unmodified test suite and test suite documentation."

    The idea would be to somehow require that derivative versions of the code would pass the test suite distributed with the code. As long as the derivative work passed the test suite you could distributed the code under any license you wanted - but if your derivative work did not pass the test suite, you'd be required to distribute it with the test suite included under the above sketch license.

    One use for this type of license would be to release code that implements some sort of API under an open source license, while ensuring that no one can change the API itself. For example, if Sun were to want to release Java under an open source license, this may be the type of license it would choose.

    By requiring that any derivative works pass the test suite, Sun could ensure that no one could publish derivative versions of Java that were incompatible with their version. The open source community (and other companies) could freely publish implementations of the code that passed the test suite, but Sun (or at least the JCP) would remain in control of Java as a standard.

    Hence the phrase, Open Source/Closed Standard.

    So, is this a good idea? Can something be considered to be "open source" if some organization stays in control of the standards that the software implements?

    Personally, I believe this should be fine. It's to everyone's benefit to allow open source implementations of standard API's while preventing fragmentation of those API's.

    For a good example, just look back a few years ago at the mess caused by Microsoft delivering an incompatible version of Java. Microsoft took advantage of their Java license and created a JVM (the MSJVM) that implemented what they called 'improvements' to Java (can you say 'embrace and extend'?).

    This caused a huge lawsuit between Sun and Microsoft. Sun claimed it was anti-competitive behavior and that it fragmented the Java standard (and they were right on both counts). It was to no one's advantage (except Microsoft's) to include a version of Java in every instance of Windows that was incompatible with all the other JVM's that were available.

    (Originally published here under a creative commons license)

    Related Links:

  • Red Hat Says Sun Should Open Source Java
  • Is "Free Software" Dead?
  • What's New Under the Sun? Sun's John Fowler talks to LinuxWorld Magazine
  • More Stories By Kevin Bedell

    Kevin Bedell, one of the founding editors of Linux.SYS-CON.com, writes and speaks frequently on Linux and open source. He is the director of consulting and training for Black Duck Software.

    Comments (9) View Comments

    Share your thoughts on this story.

    Add your comment
    You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

    In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

    Most Recent Comments
    Robert Marcum 10/01/04 09:22:03 AM EDT

    Why would you have a license for a standard specification based software like Java where you would allow ANY version which does not pass the specification validation suite to be distributed? !!

    It seems to me you could make the source available under a license that says, "Make what ever changes you want. And, you may distribute your work under this license freely, but only if it fully complies with the specification and passes the validation suite."

    Derek Berube 09/28/04 11:16:22 AM EDT

    I'm a big Java fan and love the "Write Once Run Anywhere" mantra. As a developer, I'd rather maintain a single codebase and allow my customers to choose their runtime platform based on the merits of the respective hardware platform.

    From an open source perspective I can appreciate what Sun is trying to accomplish by preventing forking of the code. You can say it isn't likely to happen, but Microsoft inherently "forked" the code in their MSJVM implementation.

    I think that the open source community could vastly help improve some aspects of the Java platform - look at how the JDK has benefitted from the inclusion/use of the Apache XML parsers. As another example, the 1.4 release of the Mac JVM supported sharing resources across virtual machines thereby reducing memory footprint and startup times. That type of functionality is soon to be made available to the rest of the Java community in the J2SE 5.0 release.

    Above all, I want full support of the Java specifications that are produced by the JCP. Anything that doesn't meet this can't use the Java brand. JVM compatibility is extremely important to me as a developer of Java products.

    Dalibor Topic 09/28/04 06:33:00 AM EDT

    If Sun's legal team sees the OSD as a challenge to write the most ambiguous license that still meets the OSD criteria but subverts the right to fork, that's still going to go down in flames, and leave Sun with another PR debacle. If you read the discussion, you can notice how people are getting increasingly annoyed about speculative attempts to wiesel around the OSD in order to tie in significant restrictions that are contrary to the spirit of open source.

    If Sun really wants to open source their Java(TM) implementation, they could talk with the ASF, FSF and the Eclipse foundation on how to do it right, and *then* submit a license that has a fighting chance of meeting *both* the requirements and goodwill of the respective communities.

    dalibor topic

    JavaLover 09/28/04 04:43:50 AM EDT

    It is interesting how every discussion about the future of Java boils down to "how can we prevent Microsoft from just killing it". There just does not seem to be any other problem that could not be solved in more that one way. Sun cannot take Java into open source only because of the Microsoft threat. There is no other power on Earth that could, in practice, hijack Java. It seems that market forces, government and courts are just unable to deal check such a concentration of wealth and monopoly power.

    Maybe, it is time to recognize that some categories of software are so vital that they in fact represent infrastructure that needs to be regulated by independent bodies, users or maybe even government. The format of office productivity suites springs to mind. We should have some rights regarding the documents we create. At the moment these are Microsoft Intelectual Property (according to Balmer). Maybe Java, as a cross-platorm should also be regulated in such a way. There are many arguments against this (stifling inovation) but there does not seem to be any other option that $40bn will not neutralize.

    Gartner Group has just called Windows a perpetual beta test. Are we willing to live with such infrastructure? It seems that this is acceptable only in the software business and no other infrastructure (telephony, post, air transport, traffic) - everywhere else, we have standards that prevent companies from "innovating" to their heart's desire.

    We just do not seem to be aware that MS Office and J2EE are vital infrastructures of the modern economy.

    jdkane 09/27/04 10:55:41 AM EDT

    Can open source and closed standards work together?

    Yes, anything can work if you make it work, and Sun is a hard-working company. The other questions is: Do we want it to work?

    Why not. Sun has to maintain some kind of reign on the technology if they are to control it properly to compete against (for example) Microsoft and .Net.

    Kudos to them ... they're trying their best to serve the best of both worlds: their own, and the Open Source community. Maybe it doesn't look like it's giving as much control to some developers as they want, but it's better than nothing. And the two sets of interests do compete ... so - again - kudos to Sun for even trying this. At least they're trying something new and innovative instead of saying it cannot be done.

    reporter 09/27/04 10:02:46 AM EDT

    Open source can work with closed standards under 1 caveat: the open-source programmers may need to rename a variant on the closed standards.
    The situation is analogous to building a chip that runs an instruction set architecture (ISA) owned by a competitor. The ISA is a closed standard in the sense that the company owning the ISA has trademarked its name. For example, MIPS technology trademarked the name "MIPS". A competitor, Lexra, then implemented a subset of the MIPS ISA, omitting 2 instructions. Lexra said that its chip is MIPS ISA compatible. MIPS sued and won. If Lexra had, instead, labeled its chip "MIPS ISA flavored", not "MIPS ISA compatible", then there would be no legal problems.

    Another good analogy is Microsoft incorporating the Java runtime environment in its browser. The environment was not fully compatible with Sun's closed-standard for the Java runtime environment. Sun sued and won. If Microsoft had claimed that the browser was equipped with a "Java flavored runtime environment" or "JavaPlus[tm] runtime environment" (and trademarked "JavaPlus"), then there would be no legal problems.

    I do not see a problem here.

    Open source is now a credible movement. The open-source development lab (OSDL) and the free software foundation (FSF) have sufficient clout that if any team of talented programmers created a language called "JavaPlus", derived from and mostly (but not entirely) compatible with the closed-standard Java, there is the strong likelihood that JavaPlus would come to dominate the market for Java. Then, Sun would need to kiss OSDL's or FSF's ass. Sun would be forced to alter the Java standard to make it compatible with JavaPlus.

    Kris Holland 09/27/04 09:28:23 AM EDT

    "Can open source and closed standards work together?

    No they can't really, and even if it were possible why wouldn't people just use Eclipse?

    "Under such a scheme Sun could maintain control of the Java API but allow open implementations."

    Sun never learns. When they got into fight over Java with Mircrosoft the result was MS making .NET. When will Sun decide to open Java up when Java becomes as much as an underdog/hasbeen as Solaris.

    No one cares anymore Sun, the community is just routing around you and soon you will be insignificant.

    anonymous cowherd 09/27/04 09:16:36 AM EDT

    Sun should just take a lesson from the Python Software Foundation. Although I don't like how Python's current implementation basically acts as a de facto standard (there should be a real standard rather than just a reference implentation that doesn't really reference anything), Python's implementation and "standard" are both open. Anyone can take Python and fork it in incompatible directions. Just take a look at all the posts in comp.lang.python regarding Python-derived languages.

    How has this affected Python? Not a bit. If anything, it's encouraged innovation through the Stackless and IronPython projects.

    I think what Sun is really worried about is trademark dilution. If that is the case, why not just specifiy that any derivative works must be named something other than Java? The only practical effect this would have is to make the licence GPL incompatible, since most people will rename a fork anyway. However, it does preserve Sun's trademark.

    Sun could still certify implementations as Java compatible, giving them the right to use the phrase, too. If there were a reasonable fee involved for certification, then Sun wins another revenue stream. It's a win-win.

    orcmid 09/27/04 08:11:02 AM EDT

    A few things about this article. First, I think there is an important difference between problems like open-source software that implements TIFF or PDF in some way (both specifications being held as proprietary).

    Secondly, it is probably not appropriate to refer to a "closed standard" because it doesn't mean the same as "closed source." I don't have a better term.

    Third, which I think is the case here, has to do with specifications that embody interoperability agreements. How does one ensure that someone doesn't fork the interoperability and hi-jack it in favor of the direction taken by a given implementation variant. Obvious examples in the past have to do with Netscape/Microsoft competition over HTML and browser-extension mechanisms, and current prospects for similar variations.

    When we took ODMA and DMA to open-source (http://DMware.info/), there was some concern about disruption by forking of the middleware functionality, interfaces, and integration model. The worry for DMA was baseless (it has not been implemented in an interoperable way anywhere) and the concern for ODMA remains since its middleware is in use and people do have access to the middleware source code.

    However, the open-source license that you describe doesn't qualify under the freedom to use in any domain and application, it seems to me. The solution that I have looked at is the non-confusion principle. That is, you can't offer a derivative work as a version of the covered work unless you pass whatever the test is. It is a labeling and identification matter. You can't promote the fork or deviation as satisfying the specification and you can't name it in a way that would confuse or deceive adopters of it. That's clear enough but the gray areas create problems. I think one doesn't deal with those unless they come up. We usually worry too much about forking in the absence of an infraction.

    I remember being concerned with how "extensions" and "improvements" that do not preserve legacy compatibility are handled. Also, is the improvement one that can be removed if it is necessary to revert to something that is consistent with a reference implementation? Those are the cases that I wonder about: playing nice and always preserving the user opportunity to make substitutions and to cross backward to something that conforms to the specification is what matters to me. But the best restriction, I think, is that a specification-deviating derivative work must not be identified in any way which confuses it with a bona fide implementation. And the source code remains open-source software.

    Finally, there is no way to prevent an independent implementation that is equivalent to forking, since copyright simply doesn't handle that. Consequently, strong compliance with the specification can't be handled solely by a copyright license. It takes something else. I haven't looked at trademark requirements, but the organization that supports the specification might want to look at that. Tying to the open-source license with a non-confusion clause strikes me as an useful light-weight provision that might get enough of the job done, without worrying about the seriously adversarial provisions where the lack of goodwill undermines any license you can think of.

    @ThingsExpo Stories
    Dion Hinchcliffe is an internationally recognized digital expert, bestselling book author, frequent keynote speaker, analyst, futurist, and transformation expert based in Washington, DC. He is currently Chief Strategy Officer at the industry-leading digital strategy and online community solutions firm, 7Summits.
    Digital Transformation and Disruption, Amazon Style - What You Can Learn. Chris Kocher is a co-founder of Grey Heron, a management and strategic marketing consulting firm. He has 25+ years in both strategic and hands-on operating experience helping executives and investors build revenues and shareholder value. He has consulted with over 130 companies on innovating with new business models, product strategies and monetization. Chris has held management positions at HP and Symantec in addition to ...
    Cloud-enabled transformation has evolved from cost saving measure to business innovation strategy -- one that combines the cloud with cognitive capabilities to drive market disruption. Learn how you can achieve the insight and agility you need to gain a competitive advantage. Industry-acclaimed CTO and cloud expert, Shankar Kalyana presents. Only the most exceptional IBMers are appointed with the rare distinction of IBM Fellow, the highest technical honor in the company. Shankar has also receive...
    Enterprises have taken advantage of IoT to achieve important revenue and cost advantages. What is less apparent is how incumbent enterprises operating at scale have, following success with IoT, built analytic, operations management and software development capabilities - ranging from autonomous vehicles to manageable robotics installations. They have embraced these capabilities as if they were Silicon Valley startups.
    Internet-of-Things discussions can end up either going down the consumer gadget rabbit hole or focused on the sort of data logging that industrial manufacturers have been doing forever. However, in fact, companies today are already using IoT data both to optimize their operational technology and to improve the experience of customer interactions in novel ways. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Gordon Haff, Red Hat Technology Evangelist, shared examples from a wide range of industries – including en...
    The standardization of container runtimes and images has sparked the creation of an almost overwhelming number of new open source projects that build on and otherwise work with these specifications. Of course, there's Kubernetes, which orchestrates and manages collections of containers. It was one of the first and best-known examples of projects that make containers truly useful for production use. However, more recently, the container ecosystem has truly exploded. A service mesh like Istio addr...
    Rodrigo Coutinho is part of OutSystems' founders' team and currently the Head of Product Design. He provides a cross-functional role where he supports Product Management in defining the positioning and direction of the Agile Platform, while at the same time promoting model-based development and new techniques to deliver applications in the cloud.
    Predicting the future has never been more challenging - not because of the lack of data but because of the flood of ungoverned and risk laden information. Microsoft states that 2.5 exabytes of data are created every day. Expectations and reliance on data are being pushed to the limits, as demands around hybrid options continue to grow.
    Business professionals no longer wonder if they'll migrate to the cloud; it's now a matter of when. The cloud environment has proved to be a major force in transitioning to an agile business model that enables quick decisions and fast implementation that solidify customer relationships. And when the cloud is combined with the power of cognitive computing, it drives innovation and transformation that achieves astounding competitive advantage.
    Poor data quality and analytics drive down business value. In fact, Gartner estimated that the average financial impact of poor data quality on organizations is $9.7 million per year. But bad data is much more than a cost center. By eroding trust in information, analytics and the business decisions based on these, it is a serious impediment to digital transformation.
    Andrew Keys is Co-Founder of ConsenSys Enterprise. He comes to ConsenSys Enterprise with capital markets, technology and entrepreneurial experience. Previously, he worked for UBS investment bank in equities analysis. Later, he was responsible for the creation and distribution of life settlement products to hedge funds and investment banks. After, he co-founded a revenue cycle management company where he learned about Bitcoin and eventually Ethereal. Andrew's role at ConsenSys Enterprise is a mul...
    As IoT continues to increase momentum, so does the associated risk. Secure Device Lifecycle Management (DLM) is ranked as one of the most important technology areas of IoT. Driving this trend is the realization that secure support for IoT devices provides companies the ability to deliver high-quality, reliable, secure offerings faster, create new revenue streams, and reduce support costs, all while building a competitive advantage in their markets. In this session, we will use customer use cases...
    Digital Transformation: Preparing Cloud & IoT Security for the Age of Artificial Intelligence. As automation and artificial intelligence (AI) power solution development and delivery, many businesses need to build backend cloud capabilities. Well-poised organizations, marketing smart devices with AI and BlockChain capabilities prepare to refine compliance and regulatory capabilities in 2018. Volumes of health, financial, technical and privacy data, along with tightening compliance requirements by...
    delaPlex is a global technology and software development solutions and consulting provider, deeply committed to helping companies drive growth, revenue and marketplace value. Since 2008, delaPlex's objective has been to be a trusted advisor to its clients. By redefining the outsourcing industry's business model, the innovative delaPlex Agile Business Framework brings an unmatched alliance of industry experts, across industries and functional skillsets, to clients anywhere around the world.
    Headquartered in Plainsboro, NJ, Synametrics Technologies has provided IT professionals and computer systems developers since 1997. Based on the success of their initial product offerings (WinSQL and DeltaCopy), the company continues to create and hone innovative products that help its customers get more from their computer applications, databases and infrastructure. To date, over one million users around the world have chosen Synametrics solutions to help power their accelerated business or per...
    DXWordEXPO New York 2018, colocated with CloudEXPO New York 2018 will be held November 11-13, 2018, in New York City and will bring together Cloud Computing, FinTech and Blockchain, Digital Transformation, Big Data, Internet of Things, DevOps, AI, Machine Learning and WebRTC to one location.
    DXWorldEXPO | CloudEXPO are the world's most influential, independent events where Cloud Computing was coined and where technology buyers and vendors meet to experience and discuss the big picture of Digital Transformation and all of the strategies, tactics, and tools they need to realize their goals. Sponsors of DXWorldEXPO | CloudEXPO benefit from unmatched branding, profile building and lead generation opportunities.
    The best way to leverage your Cloud Expo presence as a sponsor and exhibitor is to plan your news announcements around our events. The press covering Cloud Expo and @ThingsExpo will have access to these releases and will amplify your news announcements. More than two dozen Cloud companies either set deals at our shows or have announced their mergers and acquisitions at Cloud Expo. Product announcements during our show provide your company with the most reach through our targeted audiences.
    DXWorldEXPO LLC announced today that "Miami Blockchain Event by FinTechEXPO" has announced that its Call for Papers is now open. The two-day event will present 20 top Blockchain experts. All speaking inquiries which covers the following information can be submitted by email to [email protected] Financial enterprises in New York City, London, Singapore, and other world financial capitals are embracing a new generation of smart, automated FinTech that eliminates many cumbersome, slow, and expe...
    DevOpsSummit New York 2018, colocated with CloudEXPO | DXWorldEXPO New York 2018 will be held November 11-13, 2018, in New York City. Digital Transformation (DX) is a major focus with the introduction of DXWorldEXPO within the program. Successful transformation requires a laser focus on being data-driven and on using all the tools available that enable transformation if they plan to survive over the long term. A total of 88% of Fortune 500 companies from a generation ago are now out of bus...