IBM’s proposal to have the Java programming language
offered under an open-source format is puzzling a Sun Microsystems
official, who stressed that the existing licensing programme
ensures compatibility for the language.
While IBM has maintained that Sun has too much control of Java
under the Java Community Process, Java creator Sun remains
steadfast in believing Sun is on the right track.
"We looked at the [IBM] request and our first question was,
'That seems a little bonky. Could you explain what [open sourcing
of Java] means?'" said Sun’s Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice
president for software.
Last week, an open letter from IBM suggested Sun make Java
available under an open-source format. But Schwartz said Java
places compatibility as the most important imperative. He cited the
open-source platform Linux as an example of a technology that has
"forked" into different implementations, albeit only one that is
important.
"In the server side, Linux has forked so that there’s only one
Linux distribution that matters in North America," with that
distribution coming from Red Hat, Schwartz said. "The modus
operandi of the Linux movement was to create choice.
"In the Java world, we had the opposite motivation, which was to
ensure that compatibility ruled the day," he said, adding that
allowing for differentiation in implementing Java technology also
has been a goal.
Java source code is available for anyone to look at. "What you
can’t do is call it Java unless you have passed the Java
compatibility tests that we and the Java community have invested so
richly in," Schwartz said.
Sun employees administer the compatibility tests, but the
company is open to having a third-party lab do the testing.
Schwartz said IBM is struggling for differentiation and that Sun
has offered many technologies, such as Network File System and the
OpenOffice office applications, under a General Public Licence,
while IBM has not offered technologies under a GPL. IBM has a
problem in that the main beneficiary of its Linux demand generation
is Red Hat and not IBM.
Paul Krill writes for InfoWorld