So, will Bob Sutor ever get his way? Is Sun going to open up Java? Certainly, Sun is moving in that direction. According to Gingell, Sun realized that it had to figure out a way to let open source organizations like the Apache Software Foundation license Java. Along those lines, Gingell says Sun intends to open-source Java, but that it's not a simple process because Sun doesn't own all the intellectual property in all the JSRs. For the same reasons it can't open source all of Solaris, Sun apparently can't legally open source all of Java either. The company is working on clearing the legal hurdles cleared.

Even if Java does get open-sourced, Sun remains unbending on the issue of compatibility. This is where that veto power comes in. If Sun doesn't keep a close watch on things, the company fears, the "write-once, run anywhere" promise of Java could be compromised. Its fears may be justified. Even with the current Java licensing structure in place, Microsoft went ahead and released a Java virtual machine (and the accompanying development tools) that gave the developers of JVM-based applications access to services in the Windows operating system. Technically, this made it possible to produce JVM-based applications that ran on Windows only.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

That lack of portability, according to Sun officials, is evident to this day in the Java version of Yahoo! Instant Messenger (YIM). The Yahoo! client runs flawlessly in the old Microsoft JVM for Windows, but doesn't work at all in Sun's JVM for Windows. (Yahoo! was unavailable for comment.) Windows XP users have no way to run YIM for Java. Windows XP doesn't come with a JVM, the Microsoft JVM can no longer be downloaded from Microsoft's Web site, and Sun's JVM can't help either.

Sun sued Microsoft and the two companies later settled out of court.

But that wasn't the end of Sun's troubles. Last year, IBM established and donated a significant amount of code to eclipse.org (as in, "eclipse of the sun"), an open-source-based organization that oversees the development of the Eclipse integrated development environment (IDE). That IDE, according to Sun, also violates the spirit of Java's write-once, run-anywhere promise. Sun prefers that Java developers stick to the Sun-endorsed IDE, NetBeans.

Sun has a publicly contested the viability of Eclipse for other reasons. First, it claims that that there are strings attached to Eclipse's common public license (CPL). Second, Sun questions whether IBM is devoted to keeping Eclipse up to date. But according to the Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman, IBM's CPL does indeed qualify as a free software license. And IBM just released an update to the Eclipse toolkit.

Eclipse.org isn't violating a Java license because it doesn't have a Java license. Sun is therefore powerless to do anything but wait and see if Java developers establish a preference for Eclipse over NetBeans. If they do, it could be a message to Sun that its grip on Java is too tight and that despite what Sun would like to see happen to Java, the developers would like tools that are a bit more flexible. Then again, any developer migration to Eclipse might just be the gravitational pull of the open source IDE with the most marketing muscle (IBM) behind it.

Either way, if Eclipse turns out to be the preferred IDE, it will be clear that developers are not nearly as concerned as Sun is about the threat Eclipse represents to Java's portability. To the extent that IBM is willing to go to great lengths to wrest control of Java away from Sun--from using Sun's own words against it to funding other open source efforts that undermine Sun's control of Java--I asked Sutor if IBM wasn't being a bit hypocritical, given the size of its own intellectual property portfolio. It was here, finally, that I found some common ground between Sutor and Gingell. Both men agree that intellectual property lawyers at their respective companies have their own understanding of how to protect a company's bottom line. The challenge for Sutor and Gingell is selling others in their respective companies on the notion that growth stimulated by open standards and open source could have an equal if not greater impact on a company's bottom line.

What do you think? Should Sun relinquish Java to a neutral body? Or, is Java best served when Sun is in control? TalkBack to me below, or write to me at david.berlind@cnet.com.

Previous page |   1 2 3

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]