| About InfoWorld : Advertise : Subscribe : Contact Us : Awards : Events : Store |
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
 |
|
|||
 |
||||
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 COLUMN
Sun should go for broke on open-source Java and scare Microsoft away in the bargain DURING THE FIRST years of Java's phenomenal growth in popularity, I fully endorsed Sun's controlling authority over Java. Sure, Sun did it in part to make money on licensing (as if that's a bad thing). But the bottom line was that Sun had no choice but to assert its control.
Had Java already been widely adopted, it could have relied upon the fact that a platform-independent Java was the de facto standard. But it wasn't widely adopted yet, so it didn't have the status of a de facto standard to protect it. Sun could have turned Java over to a standards group, but not without risking the possibility that Microsoft would influence that group to its favor. Considering Micro-soft's bank account, that was a very realistic fear. Sun's only viable option was to retain control over Java. Things have changed, especially in the past year, and Sun is recognizing that it can now operate without as much fear of Microsoft's influence over Java. As a result, Sun is now considering releasing Java under the Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL, pronounced "sizzle"). The ramifications of SISSL probably aren't fully understood by anyone yet, but most people speculate it will allow Sun to have final say about what constitutes the official version of Java. Before I continue, let me make it clear that I believe Sun has the right to assert any level of control over Java that it wishes. I also believe that Sun has the right to charge what the market will bear for Java licenses. And if Sun decides to continue that route, I would defend its right to do so. But I strongly recommend otherwise, for strategic reasons. I propose that Sun go for broke and license Java under the GNU General Public License (GPL). What are the drawbacks for Sun? Depending on how SISSL works, the GPL might be more likely to reduce or eliminate Sun's ability to make money selling Java licenses. But that conclusion is premature, no matter what SISSL amounts to. Trolltech has created a triple license model for its programming toolkit Qt, including GPL as one alternative. Troll expects to continue making money on its commercial licenses, regardless of its GPL alternative. The jury is out on whether or not that is possible, but Sun could try a dual or triple license as well. The advantages to making Java available under the GPL are much easier to elaborate. First and foremost, a GPL Java undermines the supremacy of Windows better than Java under any other license. It also disrupts Microsoft's model for making money on its latest Java competitor, C#. There are still many reasons why people might want to choose C# over Java. But as Microsoft demonstrated with Internet Explorer, very few things can stand up for long against free competition -- especially when the free product shows up on every copy of the operating system. Granted, Sun's Java is likely to be included with all Linux distributions by default if the SISSL license is simply compatible with GPL. But Sun can initiate much more momentum for Java on Linux -- the platform Java probably has the least momentum on right now -- by using the GPL itself for its license. Sun needs to get Java accepted in the open-source development community, not the user or administrator community. And like it or not, the open-source development community clearly favors products that are under the GPL. More important, however, is the fact that the GPL prevents companies such as Micro-soft from modifying the source code without redistributing their modifications back to the community. This is anathema to Microsoft. Unless there is a change of guard at Microsoft, licensing Java under the GPL would be as good as issuing a guarantee that Microsoft will never touch Java again. Nicholas Petreley is the founding editor of LinuxWorld ( www.linuxworld.com ). Contact him at nicholas.petreley @linuxworld.com.  RELATED SUBJECTS  Enterprise ApplicationsOperating SystemsSoftware DevelopmentDiscuss this article in our online forums MORE > SPONSORED WHITE PAPERS 
SPONSORED LINKS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
