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 125263
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Open Source Java?
by binarycrusader on Tue 16th May 2006 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source Java?"
binarycrusader
Member since:
2005-07-06

Secondly, what is clear is that choosing the GPL is the best way to prevent forks. Yes, there are plenty Linux distros, but they all take the Linux kernel from the same codebase, GNU binutils from the same codebase, and so on.

That isn't necessarily true. In fact, I don't see how the GPL prevents forking at all. It seems to encourage it, just look at the hundreds of Linux distributions that exist. Not only are they different in what they package, many of them have different patches applied, etc. They may have the same sources for code, but that doesn't mean anything.

In fact, I'm not sure how the GPL ensures that people will obtain it from the same source, when obviously, the different kernel patches they use often don't come from the same source.

I think the correct thing to say is that the GPL is *one* of many open source licenses that can *encourage* a centralized project. However, I'm not aware of any that would actually *prevent* forking.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Open Source Java?
by twenex on Tue 16th May 2006 23:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Open Source Java?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I think the correct thing to say is that the GPL is *one* of many open source licenses that can *encourage* a centralized project. However, I'm not aware of any that would actually *prevent* forking.

I didn't say it would prevent forking, any more than DRM will prevent illegal copying. What I did say is that it is the best way to prevent copying, just as making code closed-source is the best way to prevent your algorithms being copied by someone else. But it's still not impossible.

In fact, I don't see how the GPL prevents forking at all. It seems to encourage it, just look at the hundreds of Linux distributions that exist. Not only are they different in what they package, many of them have different patches applied, etc. They may have the same sources for code, but that doesn't mean anything.

I already addressed this in my post. Distros are *collections* of OSS, and as such they can differ in their choice of what goes into the collection. Yes, I know many distros do submit patches to GPL'ed programs and such (Gentoo and SuSE being two of them which I use), but since they must be open-sourced, they can't be "taken away" from the community in the way that, say, you can take FreeBSD, make changes to support your proprietary architecture, and keep the changes to yourself, such that (say) only your GUI can run on top of your architecture. Anyone who does so is in violation of the GPL.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Open Source Java?
by binarycrusader on Wed 17th May 2006 00:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Open Source Java?"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't say it would prevent forking, any more than DRM will prevent illegal copying.

Actually, you did:

Secondly, what is clear is that choosing the GPL is the best way to prevent forks.

At the very least you implied that it would "prevent forks."

I already addressed this in my post. Distros are *collections* of OSS, and as such they can differ in their choice of what goes into the collection. Yes, I know many distros do submit patches to GPL'ed programs and such (Gentoo and SuSE being two of them which I use), but since they must be open-sourced, they can't be "taken away" from the community in the way that, say, you can take FreeBSD, make changes to support your proprietary architecture, and keep the changes to yourself, such that (say) only your GUI can run on top of your architecture. Anyone who does so is in violation of the GPL.

So then, wouldn't *any* open source license with roughly the same terms as the GPL be just as good at "preventing forking" as you said earlier? Why the GPL? What makes it better than other OSI approved licenses with similar terms?

Reply Parent Score: 3