Tech Update: Was Apache a catalyst in you practically open sourcing Java.

Gingell: The answer to that is a bit fuzzier than many realize. The reason open-source zealots don't like the Sun Community Source License is because it requires that you stay compatible. When they say, "We'd just rather you delete that phrase," we say no.

Since 1997, Java has been licensed on those terms. It's also been true, however, that the process by which Java evolved came with a set of terms that effectively prohibited anybody from using an open-source license. But that's not our intention. The way the JCP is built is that the person who does the work has the right to decide how it is they're going to make it available. After all, they did the work. Whether that's open source or some variant of open source or not open source at all, they can do whatever as long as the terms are not rejected by the Java community.

The change we made recently was to make one of those options open source. Previously, it was debatable whether open source was an option. Some lawyers would read it and say, "I think it can be open source" and other lawyers would read it and say, "I don't think it can." So, we removed the ambiguity and said yes, it definitely can.

Tech Update: So, to be clear, that allowed people to come up with a JVM and distribute it under an open-source license?

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Gingell: Literally, not true today. It will be true at some point in the future.

Tech Update: But some companies are actually doing that now.

Gingell: But they couldn't actually prove it because they couldn't run the conformance kits to show that they were actually compatible. When all the dust from this settles, they will be able to do all that.

Tech Update: When will that be?

Gingell: There was a collection of existing works that we agreed to retrofit with the new terms, which are only now being passed by the community onto a subset of the things, like servlets and JSPs, that we've prehistorically done.

Those were the things that were of particular interest to Apache because they were working on them. We agreed to retrofit those and we also agreed that on a going-forward basis starting this fall, all new things are created under that structure. We also said that over an indefinite time period we would retrofit the terms to all previous things, including ultimately J2SE and the platform. But we said that, generally, we would do that when they're being revised because it's actually expensive [due to the engineering expense] to split off test suites from reference implementations. There's a fair amount of work involved in doing that.

So, we wanted that scheduled over a period when we were doing the work anyway as opposed to just having to go through a fire drill to do a year's worth of engineering overnight. It didn't make sense. There aren't a lot of people clamoring to create naked clones of J2SE because that's really a lot of work, but eventually they'll be able to do that.

Tech Update: Do you have any fears that once the dust does settle, that IBM will try to co-opt it or take it over?

Gingell: I have some fears that they will want to try.

Tech Update: IBM has established a mode where if it wants something to go its way, it open sources a huge amount of code. They did it with UDDI, SOAP, and then Eclipse. It's a strategy that seems to work.

Gingell: That's sort of the R.J. Reynolds theory of marketing. Let's find the third world and dump a lot of cigarettes on it. Earlier you were talking about IBM leading a lot with Linux and so forth. I am unconvinced. I don't think IBM really gets it. If it's using communities as dumping grounds to accomplish manipulation, that's not really being part of the community. Dumping does not constitute merit. It is entirely possible that an initial large contribution is sincerely offered as a large contribution, and they are going to continue to keep it updated. But, what you just described as a motive for doing that was to manipulate. I don't think you can genuinely integrate with a community where your motive is manipulation. Your motive has to be to operate as part of that community. If you do anything else, the community will find you out.

When we talk about open sourcing Solaris, the idea isn't that we're going to ram it down everyone's throat. We're saying, "Look, you guys are trying to do a bunch of this stuff. We already did that stuff. Take it. Change it. Whatever." What we're interested in, in the end, is not that you took our code as much as that the collective product could be a basis on top of which we can build product too. If you don't take it, and we think it's a really important part of our business, we're just going to keep maintaining it. That's OK. It's allowed. I'm entitled to be different if I want.

Back when I first talked about giving away Solaris about four years ago--during one of the periodic "IBM talking to Sun about using Solaris" conversations- everyone here was like, "Gasp! IBM will see everything including the secret sauce!"

First of all, it's IBM. I would love to drop my code on them because you know what's going to happen. They're going to stop and stare at it for a while and wonder, what the hell are we doing? They're going to do anything but compete in Unix at that point, and that's because it's IBM. This is where the collection of primates becomes important. If you operate with the foundation belief that you can only interact with something because you control it, then I don't see how you are going to succeed in operating by merit.

Sun has been, and arguably still is, the leader in Unix. We've never owned it. It has never been titled to Sun. Never, ever. It has always been someone else's license. We've led entirely through merit.

As it happens, we do own Java. We created it. We own it primarily because an owned thing can be protected. The people who own Unix can't actually do anything to legally protect it because they're beholden to all the people they'd be defending it from. So, what else can they do?

I think IBM still actually wants to be in control. When you ask me if I worry IBM will try to get control, yes, I worry they'll try. I don't actually worry that they will be successful because if that is in fact a motive, they'll be found out. They may do some damage before they're found out. How long will they get away with it and how much damage will they do? I don't know. But in the end, you have to have some faith in democracy.

In the end, democracy usually wins even though it's periodically more inefficient than other things. Fundamentally, people ain't stupid. They'll figure out what's really going on.

Previous page |   1 2 3 4 5

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]