Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th May 2006 22:13 UTC, submitted by adstro
Java "Sun today announced that Java Platform, Standard Edition 5 is now available for redistribution by GNU/Linux and OpenSolaris operating system distributors under the new Operating System Distributor's License for Java (also known as the 'Distro License for Java' or DLJ). Developed in consultation with, and for use by, the various GNU/Linux communities, the new license allows distributors to ship Sun's Java SE 5.0 Java Development Kit and Java Runtime Environment as installable packages for their operating systems." At the same time, Sun also promised to open-source Java.
Thread beginning with comment 125254
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
same mistake all over the place ...
by taos on Tue 16th May 2006 23:07 UTC
taos
Member since:
2005-11-16

The linked article begins with:

"Sun Microsystems is planning to release the source code of the Java programming language ..."

The same thing said on CNET:

<quote>the event won't see developers get their hands on the source code for the actual Java programming language</quote>
From "Java inches closer to open source":
http://news.com.com/Java+inches+closer+to+open+source/2100-1007_3-6...

<quote>Attendees to JavaOne will not be getting their hands on the source code for the Java language</quote>
From "Sun promises to open-source Java":
http://news.com.com/Sun+promises+to+open-source+Java/2100-7344_3-60...

Correct me if I'm wrong:

The source code for Sun JDK/JRE - Sun's implementation of Java - has been available for a long time under these licenses:

http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/source_license.html

Anyone can get the source immediately under those license.

So the issue here is not "release the source code", but rather choosing a "Open Source" license for Java so that it becomes a "Free Software".

( I am not a Free software zealot, just get tired explaining that the source code is already available. )

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yes yes, we all know it's been available for a long time, but the old license is not an Open Source license.

In regard to "Free Software", one must remember that "Open Source" is not necessarily "Free Software", while "Free Software" always is "Open Source".

Just as to correct a few details ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3