The company’s software chief said an organization such as certification and program management specialist KeyLabs could be suited to managing Java.
However, Sun is anxious to prevent forking, with different versions of Java and therefore a KeyLabs-type guardian would have to continue compatibility testing.
By the same token, Sun seems to be against releasing Java under the GNU Public License (GPL) following recent calls by IBM and other proponents to open source Java.
Software group executive vice president Jonathan Schwartz told press this week: Linux GPL allows for people to fork. There’s no forking in the kernel, because the kernel is supplied by one guy.
Schwartz spoke after IBM’s VP of emerging internet technologies Rod Smith last week published an open letter calling for a joint Sun and IBM project to open source Java. Smith’s letter was sparked by an open letter from open source guru Eric Raymond to Sun chief executive Scott McNealy.
Smith claimed open sourcing Java would accelerate adoption of technologies build on Linux and expand the Java developer community.
Opening Java could potentially assist development of Java applications by ISVs building for open source platforms like Red Hat Inc by removing any lingering concerns over contributing vendors’ intellectual property (IP) contained in Java.
However, Sun has already separated the all-important Java test compatibility kit from the platform, enabling open source vendors to certify applications without concerns the suites, again, contain vendors’ IP.
Apache Software Foundation, JBoss and ObjectWeb Consortium have signed-up to license Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) 1.4 as a consequence.
Schwartz said Sun has asked IBM to explain what they mean when they say open source Java, calling IBM’s letter a little bunky.
Instead, IBM and Sun’s dispute appears more political than practical. Sun takes royalties for licensing of Java to manufacturers, which rankles many, while IBM will be particularly irked that Sun – a systems, services and J2EE rival – is in a position to ultimately control any changes to Java through the power of veto.
Schwartz pointed out Sun has never used its veto, but said Sun is open to giving up control to an organization like KeyLabs.
We are concerned that innovation happens on a level playing field, he said, without one company implementing changes that are advantageous to its own platform and no-one else’s. Schwartz pointed to Microsoft Corp’s licensing of Java in the 1990s, and subsequent changes optimizing the language to Windows.
The subject of compatibility is a sore one in the Java world. The current Java Community Process (JCP), while guaranteeing a base-level platform for servers, desktops, mobile and embedded devices, has failed to deliver 100% portability between different ISVs’ implementations of these platforms. Today, numerous community programs are underway to close that gap.
This article is based on material originally published by ComputerWire
