[FoRK] Fwd: [Processing] download the new beta release!
michaelslists at gmail.com
Thu May 19 20:37:43 PDT 2005
Hang on though. Java's code _is_ "open" (you can view it), you just
can't re-distribute it. I actually _like_ this system. It makes it
easier for me to distribute my java code around - don't have to worry
about hundreds of JRE's and different-behaving API's.
On 5/20/05, Luis Villa <luis.villa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Luis Villa <luis.villa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/19/05, Michael Silk <michaelslists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > * because on principle one shouldn't use any software whose
> > > > maintenance is monopolized by anyone
> > >
> > > i agree. [message written in gmail, on windows xp, using ie].
> > >
> > > but seriously ...
> > >
> > > you know anyone is free to implement their own jvm as per java
> > > language specs?
> > It's far from clear that this would really continue to be the case if
> > Sun's back were even further again the wall. IBM would of course still
> > be in the clear because they have more lawyers than Sun does, but
> > Sun's rhetoric, and the licensing terms around Java (in terms of the
> > use of the name, the cost/availability of the compatibility test
> > suite, etc.) don't really match up.
> Let me put it another way- if Sun's Java strategy was actually free
> software/open source friendly, they could very, very easily open
> Java's code- it would be the best way to reduce fragmentation and
> increase code quality (which are always their claimed excuses for not
> opening it) because it would focus all energy on one implementation,
> instead of the 3-4 that are now floating around. That they don't open
> the code- *the best path towards their claimed goals*- indicates to
> me and many others that their rhetoric and their actual strategy don't
> match, and that mismatch inspires a distrust that no amount of claims
> about what they would or wouldn't do to free java implementations can
More information about the FoRK