It's about time that Sun relaxes their software EULA  the current one is a straight jacket! Sun get serious about open sourcing Java.

||| seems Sun is gonna change their license at this point so every Linux distribution can distribute the JRE and support Java out of the box. |||

Nope. The JRL only allows research use - no distributions.

The JDL only allows distributing after passing the costly test suite - no (volunteer based) distributions.

The JIUL will only allow *internal* use - no distributions

Until now, you are only allowed to distribute the JRE with Java software. This has always been an problem for creators of Linux distributions who like to include Java in their distribution.

I seems Sun is gonna change their license at this point so every Linux distribution can distribute the JRE and support Java out of the box.

This is probably the most important part of the license change

Surely an open source Java would open the door to an MS modified version of the JRE being bundled with (but not part of) Windows or IE?

Sun will never open source Java. Why? Because with an open source JVM, the revenue for J2ME is gone. Instead of innovating with Java we have to put up with yet another license.

%%So, what do you think about when you think about Sun? Computers, networks, operating systems... and Java. There's the problem, because Java is boring. Java is the safe choice.%%

Sure it's boring. It works. Just works and works....

Anyone see Tim Bray's blog (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/03/15/OneSunYear) on March 15: "So, what do you think about when you think about Sun? Computers, networks, operating systems... and Java. There's the problem, because Java is boring. Java is the safe choice. Java is COBOL. You won't get fired for choosing Java. Banks use Java. Telephone companies use Java. CIOs like Java...it's not exciting. J2EE isn't either. EJBs aren't either. Generics and autoboxing and variable-length argument lists are good things, but theyre not exciting."

Sun's relationship with MS came about because of their Java efforts. They used their position as the "controllers" of Java to stop MS from bundling an incompatible version of Java (embrase and extend, as it were) with Windows, and got them to stop and give Sun a ton of money. Now I am no fan of Java anyway (I do mostly C), but had Java been truely open source, nobody would be able to stop MS from doing this.

Sun's behavior towards open source (e.g., Schwartz's rantings, their fake patent grant, their Java efforts, their attempt to position Solaris against Linux, etc.) show that Sun is not an unequivocal supporter of free software or open source software.

The lines seem to be drawing themselves out - on one side, we have Sun, Microsoft; on the other, it's IBM, Red Hat, Novell and the rest of the pro-Linux crowd.

And then there is HP, trying to do a dance right in the middle, but getting smacked by the fodder coming from both sides.

Whilst I can see the benefits of open sourcing java I just can't see how any open source organisation can take on something as big as Java especially the J2EE side of things with the compatibility suites used to certify J2EE compliance. Also, as a Java certified engineer, what will happen to any certification program?

IMHO - Open sourcing java is a nice idea in theory but not in practice.

There are three different open source attempts to write a Java setup. At least one of them happened for the sole reason that Sun's one is not open source so couldn't be included in Debian. So if it was open source from the start there would be at least one less fork.

The fact is refusing to open the language has not prevented it forking, it has encouraged more forking to happen. You could argue that the greater ease of forking from having the full setup available to start your fork would have led to more forking, but I doubt it because people dislike "unofficial" versions. Especially if they kept the trademark, I can't imagine any non-Sun forks gaining popularity unless they were at least 20% better than Sun's, in which case the benefit from those improvements probably outweighs the damage done by forking.

"Sun has elected not to use an open-source license at this time because its commercial customers are concerned with 'forking,' or the creation of incompatible editions of the base Java software"

Believe it or not: Java is Sun's next cash machine. Many people don't realize that Sun is beginning to cash-in big amounts of dollars from Java. That's because any Java-enabled Phone, PDA, Digital TV set-top-box, or gadget-du-jour means a royalty to them, up to $1/box. There are already several millions of these gizmos, and a lot more are to come in the next years with the advent of HDTV. Sun is even lobbying to put Java within DVD players (in order to replace the crappy system used to author interactive menus, that is).

Why on earth would they open-source something that looks like the next golden goose ? That would be pure business suicide.

Wake up people. It's all about the money ! Not about "forking" and other stupid claims made to distract the open-source zealots from the real issue.

It would be great for all developers if Java were open sourced under an agreeable, OSI-compliant license. Developers of "unsupported" platforms would be able to port the JDK to their favorite operating systems (and redistribute sources and binaries of the JDK, too), which would raise the number of developers using Java, which in turn raises the number of people using Java-based applications. Next, I don't think Sun has to worry much about Java being forked. Look at C, C++, Python, Perl, and Ruby. C and C++ are ANSI-certified, and Perl, Python, and Ruby are open source. As far as I know, there aren't any forks of C, Perl, and the other languages that I've listed.