Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of theuserbl@hotmail.com
 designates 65.54.174.46 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BAY103-F36C38E90A862F8FB3F5895A9170@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <428B0325.8000400@algroup.co.uk>
From: "theUser BL" <theuserbl@hotmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: Gosling on Harmony
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:25:48 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed

>Ahmed Saad wrote:
>>The "clear need" that Magnusson cites is anything but clear to Gosling, 
>>who says Sun has received negative response from the enterprise 
>>development community regarding the idea of open-source Java."
>
>You need read no further than "if this thing turned into an open source 
>project�where just any old person could check in stuff" to understand that 
>Gosling is living in an alternate reality.

What a lot of people forgot is, that Sun is a firm like any other else.
It is not better and not warser then other firms.

When Gosling, McNealy or anybody of the other people by Sun say, that Java 
is already nearly like an OpenSource license, than it is the same like when 
Microsoft say, that their Shared Source license is better then OpenSource.
Ok, the SCSL is better then SharedSource, but the idea behind it, is 
similar.

Sun have given with OpenOffice.org the OpenSource-community a lot.
But with Java, it looks a little bit diffrent.
And the reason is, that Java _is_ already popular. So they see no need to 
make it more popular.

The same ist with OpenSolaris and so on. Because there migrate more people 
from Solaris to Linux, they put the x86 Solaris version under an OpenSource 
license - the CDDL.
And I say, if Sun would be in the position of Microsoft, they would also act 
like Microsoft today.
And don't forget this:
http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/features/sun_microsoft.html

The other thing, Sun does is, that they put Looking Glass, NetBeans and so 
on under an OpenSource license.
In a liller scale Microsoft have also published WiX and some other projects 
under an OpenSource liicense. And there compileres are free of charge, if 
you only use it on Windows.
The idea behind it is clear: Letting a platform closed source or commercial 
(Java by Sun, Windows/.net by Microsoft) and give products which run on this 
platform away for free or OpenSource, to make the platform more public.

Btw: I wonder, that my comment in the Java.net-forum at
http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=671&tstart=0
is since the 13.5. the last one and nobody contradicting me there.


Greatings
theuserbl