SDA: After Sun has announced, that Java will be maintained under the GPL 2, do you see still a future for CDDL?
Tim Bray (TB): I think so. For the moment, it seems like there are good reasons to have more than one open-source license, and in the Mozilla family of licenses, at the moment CDDL seems the most polished and furthest- developed. One of the design goals of GPL3 is to unify the world of open-source/free licenses; we'll all have to keep our eye on that, and if you really care, participate; the GPL3 process seems very open.
SDA:As the governance model for open source Java is not clear yet, there are two governance models which could suite as examples: OpenSolaris and Eclipse. Will these models have an impact on the future of Java?
TB: Yes, of course. We'll try to observe the market to observe what works and what doesn't. The Apache and Mozilla models are also interesting. Since Java is unlikely to have a benevolent dictator, the Linux and Python models probably aren't useful.
SDA: What impact will the open source announcement for Java have on regular Java developers?
TB: Very little, I think. With luck, the speed of Java's evolution will increase. There will probably be forks available - not under the name "Java" - that have interesting innovations, but at the moment it seems unlikely that enterprises will want to deploy them in production. In terms of developers, the most desirable effect would be an increase in the number
of Java developers.
SDA: We can expect, that the open sourcing of Java's implementation will generate much more dynamics than the Java Community Process, which is responsible for the specification of Java. Don't you see a risk that these two parts break into two separate pieces?
TB: At the moment, Java's specification and implementation are separated by design, and the results have been good. The current licensing announcement applies to the implementation side. It's quite likely that some JCP changes will be appropriate in the new environment, but that'll take time and thought.
SDA: What about the TCKs? Will they stay under control of Sun or will they be open sourced, too?
TB: We haven't figured out yet. The TCKs are like the final road test that you have to take to get your driver's license. It's really important that their integrity be maintained and that *belief* in their integrity remain strong. We've been too busy with Java itself, but when we start thinking about the TCKs, those are the priorities. Note that the TCK source is freely available right now on a read-only basis.
SDA: In your W-JAX keynote you were talking about the forking of Java. This is in opposition to Sun's earlier fears. What are the reasons for this change of mind?
TB: We have to defend the integrity and compatibility of Java. The way we'll do this is with business and legal tools, not source-code control. That is to say, you can take the code, you can fork the code, you can publish the forked code, but you can't call it Java without passing all the TCKs and proving it's compatible. I should be clear: we will be legally aggressive who tries to use the Java name or logo for incompatible software; they will find themselves in court very quickly. So there's no harm in forks as long as the definition of the word "Java" remains clear, so that if you use software with that name, you know you're not using an incompatible fork.
SDA: Which relationship will there be between the official GPL based implementation of Java on the one hand and Apache Harmony, the Java implementation which is supported by IBM and follows the Apache licence on the other hand?
TB: We don't know yet. I'm sure the Harmony people are thinking about this right now. We have a lot of respect for the people in Harmony and the work they've done, and it would be great if this work could be brought into the Java mainstream. Historically, they have said that they really need an OSS-but-not-GPL version of Java; if they still feel this way, then working together may be difficult.
SDA: When you were planning to open up Java - the process itself wasn't very open. Why was there no JSR organizing the open sourcing of Java?
TB: Because the definition of Java hasn't changed. Java is defined as binary codes that pass the TCKs, where the TCKs are designed to prove conformance with the universe of specifications and JSRs that define Java. The current action is around licensing of a particular implementation of that definition.
Tim Bray managed the Oxford English Dictionary project at the University of Waterloo in 1987-1989, co-founded Open Text Corporation (Nasdaq:OTEX) in 1989, launched one of the first public Web search engines in 1995, co-invented XML 1.0 and co-edited "Namespaces in XML" between 1996 and 1999, founded Antarctica Systems (antarctica.net) in 1999, and served as a Tim Berners-Lee appointee on the W3C Technical Architecture Group in 2002-2004. Currently, he serves as Director of Web Technologies at Sun Microsystems, publishes a popular weblog , and co-chairs the IETF AtomPub Working Group.
|
