Please, read my post.
It says Java must be under a dual license !
(GPL plus the binary license - same one as per now)
GPL alone would do what you have said, but here it is about a dual license (GPL + same binary license as now) and there is a huge difference.
So if anybody (say a firm or an individual) does not want to update the source then you directly pick the binary license version ! Then, you do not have any impact on your legal concern but the same one as per now (=same license = zero impact ) !
But if you plan to update the "Java SE RI sources" then the only solution for you would be to go for the source version that will be under GPL. And here the viral nature of GPL would help us to : prevent predator (do you think "big seatle" one would agree to have their own platform viraly under GPL ?), limit forking (Java platform is still Sun brand).
As per the current rules, only modified Java SDK that passes the Java SE TCK can claim to stamp "Java compatible" ! This means, that if anything is done on the sources that break the platform compatibility, you will not be legaly able to use the "Java" word and claim compatibility for your own binary.
This means in such a model, that the control will be at TCK side. TCK will prevent fragmentation as this is already doing at this time (see Harmony for instance) ! And if you want to do a "platform update" (something impacting for the platform) then this has to go thru the JCP in the corresponding JSR. And AFAIK, Sun have veto on Java SE JSR ;-)
So practically, in this model :
- Sun would have veto on platform change,
- Sun would deliver RI binaries under "BinaryLicense"
- Sun would host a source tree (like glassfish is doing for instance) for us to contribute
- independent bodies (say apache) can use the RI source code and update it
- update RI source can be build but not branded Java unless it passes the TCK
I know it is a bit tricky, but this sound quite rock solid for me.
The only legal point to solve, would be when checking in some GPL code into the RI tree you have to make the code author agree for "BinaryLicense" release of the binary.
This mean, that anybody can pick the GPL form and build its own tree, where people would inject any GPL code. But :
- he would not be able to release this under "Java" name if TCK is not green flashing
- he can not send patch to RI tree of code not under its responsability ( key point here, a discuss has always to happen between the author of a patch and the code maintainers to decide of the interrest of the contribution).
At the end, Java would be opensource but not a democracy because Sun would still be in control of the reference. Ey, but Linux kernel is not a democracy as well ... and who cares ? but RMS ;-) Vive Linus ! |
java.net RSS Feeds
