Home Page
11.26.2004
 The "Open Source Community" 
More on Sun's views on the meaning of open source, from a write-up of an interview with Jonathan Schartz in Open Source News.

The obvious question, then, was why Sun doesn't "Free up" their version of Java, and the answer is that Java is already "open," but not under a more liberal license because Sun doesn't want to open up the potential for a fork. The same fear is not present in the OpenSolaris situation because Solaris is more closely defined and controlled by Sun, while Java can be shaped by external forces easier, and so Sun doesn't want to take that risk. With over 2 billion devices worldwide running Java Sun is 100% committed to ensuring that anything 'stamped' Java is compatible. Folks really depend on that assurance.
Schwarz also reinforces the idea that being a good member of the "open source community," as that would be defined by the more ideological elements of that community, and being a profitable enterprise are not compatible goals:

He believes that Red Hat locks Enterprise customers in, just like Microsoft does, by steadily moving away from the LSB, by patching and forking code (including using a very non-standard Linux kernel) and so applications get certified or only work in the Red Hat codebase and no other Linux distro. Such an example is Oracle, where they do not support any Linux distro other than Red Hat-based ones.
Meanwhile, Newsforge has a piece on Windows developers share open source philosophy that asks:

Does the open source community embrace any group that chooses to develop and distribute code freely? If so, then the folks at OpenNETCF.org must be part of that open source community, even though they are all loyal Windows users.

OpenNETCF.org members develop extensions for the .Net compact framework and share the source code with anyone who wants it and is willing to agree to the license terms. The code license is the same "shared source" license that got Microsoft some play on Slashdot earlier this year. The developers at OpenNETCF.org say they are working in the spirit of the open source movement.

posted by James DeLong : 11/26/2004 10:58:56 AM

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

 

IPcentral WebLog
Blog Main
Recent Posts
  Bytes & Bullets
Further Jonathan Zittrain Dialectic
The New Media Marches On
Politics & Markets
More on Patent Searches
Noninfringing Use Insurance
Desktop Searches
James Boyle on Database IP in Europe
Markets and Cooperation
The Internet and the Media
Archives by Month
  December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
Links
  PFF Blog
Atom.xml Site Feed
   
 
Home Page IPcentral Weblog - Intellectual Property and Copyright Commentary
Home Page
11.26.2004
 The "Open Source Community" 
More on Sun's views on the meaning of open source, from a write-up of an interview with Jonathan Schartz in Open Source News.

The obvious question, then, was why Sun doesn't "Free up" their version of Java, and the answer is that Java is already "open," but not under a more liberal license because Sun doesn't want to open up the potential for a fork. The same fear is not present in the OpenSolaris situation because Solaris is more closely defined and controlled by Sun, while Java can be shaped by external forces easier, and so Sun doesn't want to take that risk. With over 2 billion devices worldwide running Java Sun is 100% committed to ensuring that anything 'stamped' Java is compatible. Folks really depend on that assurance.
Schwarz also reinforces the idea that being a good member of the "open source community," as that would be defined by the more ideological elements of that community, and being a profitable enterprise are not compatible goals:

He believes that Red Hat locks Enterprise customers in, just like Microsoft does, by steadily moving away from the LSB, by patching and forking code (including using a very non-standard Linux kernel) and so applications get certified or only work in the Red Hat codebase and no other Linux distro. Such an example is Oracle, where they do not support any Linux distro other than Red Hat-based ones.
Meanwhile, Newsforge has a piece on Windows developers share open source philosophy that asks:

Does the open source community embrace any group that chooses to develop and distribute code freely? If so, then the folks at OpenNETCF.org must be part of that open source community, even though they are all loyal Windows users.

OpenNETCF.org members develop extensions for the .Net compact framework and share the source code with anyone who wants it and is willing to agree to the license terms. The code license is the same "shared source" license that got Microsoft some play on Slashdot earlier this year. The developers at OpenNETCF.org say they are working in the spirit of the open source movement.

posted by James DeLong : 11/26/2004 10:58:56 AM

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

 

IPcentral WebLog
Blog Main
Recent Posts
  Bytes & Bullets
Further Jonathan Zittrain Dialectic
The New Media Marches On
Politics & Markets
More on Patent Searches
Noninfringing Use Insurance
Desktop Searches
James Boyle on Database IP in Europe
Markets and Cooperation
The Internet and the Media
Archives by Month
  December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
Links
  PFF Blog
Atom.xml Site Feed
   
 
Home Page