Comments on: The Opensourcing of Java http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/ Fearlessly dispensing political, legal and economic analysis (and some whimsy) since 2002 Thu, 24 May 2012 00:55:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: cam http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-78524 cam Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:13:37 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-78524 Tony, I am fully aware that companies seek to increase the value of their core business by commoditising their complement. The point I am making is that opensource's benefits are in its production method, not the distribution or licence. For me, as a java developer, the sun jvm was free enough. I did not get caught in any 'trap' as Stallman seemed to think. It makes no difference to my development or deployment procedures if java is under its current license or an opensource one. I may get second order effects or benefits through the change in production methodology, but for now it does not affect me. Tony, I am fully aware that companies seek to increase the value of their core business by commoditising their complement. The point I am making is that opensource’s benefits are in its production method, not the distribution or licence. For me, as a java developer, the sun jvm was free enough. I did not get caught in any ‘trap’ as Stallman seemed to think.

It makes no difference to my development or deployment procedures if java is under its current license or an opensource one. I may get second order effects or benefits through the change in production methodology, but for now it does not affect me.

]]> By: Tony Healy http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-78502 Tony Healy Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:50:20 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-78502 Jacques, that's a fair point, but you could make the same argument for any open source Windows browser too. To run any of those, you also need to buy Windows. This gets back to the point that people choose the platform first, not the browser, but that's a side issue. More relevant to this discussion is that Internet Explorer was a separate product in the period 1995 to 2000, and in that period Microsoft provided it for free but it was not open source. Microsoft did that at the time Netscape was charging corporate users a fee for its browser. Microsoft also provided free browsers for Macintosh. Again, that was closed source. Microsoft and other large computer companies will not hesitate to commoditise markets that help their core businesses. Java is a classic example, and I don't know why Cameron cites that as something made free by open source. It's always been free, and was part of Sun's attempt to build markets for Sun computers. Jacques, that’s a fair point, but you could make the same argument for any open source Windows browser too. To run any of those, you also need to buy Windows. This gets back to the point that people choose the platform first, not the browser, but that’s a side issue.

More relevant to this discussion is that Internet Explorer was a separate product in the period 1995 to 2000, and in that period Microsoft provided it for free but it was not open source. Microsoft did that at the time Netscape was charging corporate users a fee for its browser. Microsoft also provided free browsers for Macintosh. Again, that was closed source.

Microsoft and other large computer companies will not hesitate to commoditise markets that help their core businesses. Java is a classic example, and I don’t know why Cameron cites that as something made free by open source. It’s always been free, and was part of Sun’s attempt to build markets for Sun computers.

]]> By: cam http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-78267 cam Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:36:36 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-78267 Jacques, That was what I meant about it being 'free enough' for distribution purposes with the previous license. We deployed on Red Hat servers and downloading the Sun JVM/JDK was not a big deal in order to deploy the server. Jacques, That was what I meant about it being ‘free enough’ for distribution purposes with the previous license. We deployed on Red Hat servers and downloading the Sun JVM/JDK was not a big deal in order to deploy the server.

]]> By: Jacques Chester http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-78264 Jacques Chester Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:31:07 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-78264 Tony; I'm unsure if your counterpoint on browsers really holds. Internet Explorer is, so sayeth Microsoft, a Windows component and not merely a standalone browser. It is not free at all - you must purchase a license for Windows in order to have a legal copy. Cam; I think you may have overlooked the fact that the Sun JVM and class libraries will now be able to ship by default in every Linux distro or BSD ports tree. Previously this was not so. This can only improve install-base integration - it will be able to move into the Debian mainline servers rather than being in the less well supported not-free set. Tony;

I’m unsure if your counterpoint on browsers really holds. Internet Explorer is, so sayeth Microsoft, a Windows component and not merely a standalone browser. It is not free at all – you must purchase a license for Windows in order to have a legal copy.

Cam;

I think you may have overlooked the fact that the Sun JVM and class libraries will now be able to ship by default in every Linux distro or BSD ports tree. Previously this was not so. This can only improve install-base integration – it will be able to move into the Debian mainline servers rather than being in the less well supported not-free set.

]]> By: Tony Healy http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-77816 Tony Healy Thu, 04 Jan 2007 04:59:16 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-77816 Cameron, I think you misunderstand the strategies of software companies. Sun's Java compiler was free long before it was open source, right from its origins in 1995. It was free because Sun, a hardware company, wanted to attract developers to cross platform software development, which would encourage people to buy more Sun computers. So being free had nothing to do with open source. Similarly Microsoft's browser, Internet Explorer, has always been free, even though it is closed source. The reason of course is that Microsoft wants to attract users to the platform it charges money for. Also Microsoft made its compilers very cheap in the early 1990s, when it was trying to attract developers to Windows. From memory they were about $150. By comparison IBM at the time was still stuck in mainframe mode and charged a lot more for OS/2 compilers. The result is history. Developers supported Windows and ignored OS/2, and IBM lost. Also, it is true that competition from open source has prompted Microsoft to offer cut down versions of its current compiler for free. But fully-equipped enterprise versions retail for about $19,000. So the markets are really much more complicated than to say all compilers are now free. As to Sun open-sourcing Java now, I don't think it will make any difference really. Cameron, I think you misunderstand the strategies of software companies. Sun’s Java compiler was free long before it was open source, right from its origins in 1995. It was free because Sun, a hardware company, wanted to attract developers to cross platform software development, which would encourage people to buy more Sun computers. So being free had nothing to do with open source.

Similarly Microsoft’s browser, Internet Explorer, has always been free, even though it is closed source. The reason of course is that Microsoft wants to attract users to the platform it charges money for.

Also Microsoft made its compilers very cheap in the early 1990s, when it was trying to attract developers to Windows. From memory they were about $150. By comparison IBM at the time was still stuck in mainframe mode and charged a lot more for OS/2 compilers. The result is history. Developers supported Windows and ignored OS/2, and IBM lost.

Also, it is true that competition from open source has prompted Microsoft to offer cut down versions of its current compiler for free. But fully-equipped enterprise versions retail for about $19,000. So the markets are really much more complicated than to say all compilers are now free.

As to Sun open-sourcing Java now, I don’t think it will make any difference really.

]]> By: Nicholas Gruen http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-77772 Nicholas Gruen Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:08:36 +0000 http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2007/01/04/the-opensourcing-of-java/#comment-77772 It's one of the ironies of life that a culture of complaint is one of the things that keeps things working so well. When I visit certain Asian cities and end up exhausted after a few hours and there's no parks where one can get respite, I realise that all that fractiousness that we have in Australian cities about people trying to preserve parks and stop development, ends up - you guessed it preserving parks. There's a lot wrong with the way we manage land development, but the ugly culture of complaint is actually necessary I guess to getting a decent outcome. I think it's the same with IP. I spend a fair bit of my time complaining about how IP rules could be quite easily improved. And it's sad that the case can be so strong (for instance for not increasing IP terms retrospectively and for having IP terms that are - usually - not longer than say 15 years by which time their NPV for the entrepreneur at the time of investing is very low). All that having been said, the way in which open source has developed shows that the basic structure of IP law works surprisingly well. It’s one of the ironies of life that a culture of complaint is one of the things that keeps things working so well. When I visit certain Asian cities and end up exhausted after a few hours and there’s no parks where one can get respite, I realise that all that fractiousness that we have in Australian cities about people trying to preserve parks and stop development, ends up – you guessed it preserving parks. There’s a lot wrong with the way we manage land development, but the ugly culture of complaint is actually necessary I guess to getting a decent outcome.

I think it’s the same with IP. I spend a fair bit of my time complaining about how IP rules could be quite easily improved. And it’s sad that the case can be so strong (for instance for not increasing IP terms retrospectively and for having IP terms that are – usually – not longer than say 15 years by which time their NPV for the entrepreneur at the time of investing is very low).

All that having been said, the way in which open source has developed shows that the basic structure of IP law works surprisingly well.

]]>