As the Java test suites will not be made available to non- licensees, it appears that Sun Microsystems Inc will retain its ability to characterize the ‘clean room’ community as non- compatible. But the new Java 2 license model, Sun says, enables the cloners, such as Hewlett-Packard Co, to develop a realistic business model for their products, a model denied under the previous license arrangement in which they could use the specification but had no access to testing and branding without returning IP to Sun. That may be true, but to get tested the cloners will also have to take a license and commit to a royalty payment scheme. And to get their work into the Java platform, they’ll have to give up IP. So far Sun has been able to tempt Insignia, Tao Group, and Connextix away from the dissident Java faction currently working on their own real-time extensions to Java (see separate story). HP didn’t bite. Sun says its forthcoming Jini network Java environment, also due to be unveiled this week, as well as Personal and Embedded Java will also be available under the so-called ‘community license’ model. Sun said that it is not swapping a single license and royalty scheme for a multi-tier pricing arrangement that will require every end-user to take out a separate agreement with it. It says the long-overdue HotSpot go-faster compiler technology will beta this week and ship in April. It will run applications 70% faster than Java 2, shipping since last Friday, which is incrementally faster than JDK 1.1x which it replaces. Java 2 is marketing name Sun has attached to what was formerly known as JDK 1.2. Sun doesn’t expect there to be any need to have an exhaustive policing procedure to make sure royalties are paid when binaries ship. It says it has had no problems with the current test, certification or royalty models. Even Microsoft Corp, which failed the compatibility tests, told Sun which tests it was not going to pass. Immediate reaction to Sun’s new Java licensing terms from companies opposed to the existing Java development and licensing model was muted. Most of those we spoke to said Sun’s literature does not describe the terms and conditions of its so- called ‘community license model’ in enough detail to provide any assurance they would be able to retain their IP and make money as a result. Others said Sun appears to have created a new fee structure with several new components. Would Sun’s IP become ‘community property’ under the new development model as third party extension technologies would become?
