Jonathan Schwartz said that the JCP has "900 participants out there who are happy". Obviously he is not talking about the ME part of the JCP.

Sun has clearly stated to the EC that they own and control Java and that they view the input from the community as only suggestions. Jonathan Schwartz statement about voting is a farce; Sun manipulates the JCP and at times downright goes against the community voice. If Java were really a community process then Sun would be constrained by the same rules as the rest of the Java community. All you have to do is look at the issue of sub setting CDC, Sun wont let any but a very few (powerful companies) do this. They say it is to control fragmentation but they will go ahead and do it when it suits their business needs.

1. The JCP PMO is manned and controlled by Sun employees.
2. The head of the PMO is a Sun employee.
3. The decisions that the PMO makes are driven by Sun management and Sun business needs.

J2ME has become an elite club and only those who fit into Suns plan for control of the mobile space get heard. Sun uses information from channel partners (they have to disclose plans early to Sun in order to get the needed licenses) to compete for that very same business! They hold back their Java partners so that they can catch up to them.

The short of it is that Java and the JCP (especially in the J2ME space) are as far away from open as Microsoft, they just hide it behind a thin veil of community.

Personnally, I'm turned off on Linux and it's supporters in gereral, and the 'open source' crowd in particular.

All this nastiness is degrading to all who participate in it!

There has always been freindly banter over which language or OS is 'better', but the 'open source' folk have taken the dialog into the sewer. Like so many politicals of today, vicious name calling and character depreciation has replaced the strength of the argument, and radicalized differing opinions into enemies. This is degrading not to the target of the attacks, but to those engaging in it.

The truth is that the market place will determine which approach will dominate. Remember CPM? A vastly superior OS to IBM/MS-Dos, but technology is not predominent factor to market sucess. Neither will political bullying.

Linus is more a shopkeeper than a dictator. Even bazaars have shopkeepers to control the comings and goings. The "anyone can come" element of the bazaar model is not total anarchy, but controlled contribution. This Schwartz chap is an idiot. Has he ever actually thought about some of the monstrosities that have been brought about by committee design? Oh yeah, I guess he has. He was talking about Java, after all....

The reason people get confused about the Cathedral and the Bazaar, and why Schwartz isn't the first to consider Linux pretty cathedral like, is that the way real cathedrals were generally built pretty closely followed ESR's "bazaar" metaphor, with thousands of just-ordinary-folks with a huge variety of skills popping in to do their part. The architect/builder (or builders, for many cathedrals took generations to reach their final form) had far less control over the implementation than Linus does.

Eric really needs to take a step or two back and ask if he really said what he thought he said.

The reason Linus is the final arbiter is because everyone agrees to this. Anyone who doesn't agree is welcome to fork in a new direction. If everyone goes away to something new, then Linus loses his power. Code development continues and this is the way of the bazaar.

The reason Bill Gates is the final arbiter is because he is the boss. Anyone who doesn't agree with him can leave and quit developing Windows code and this is the way of the cathedral.

Daniel Wallace is an idiot. The GPL simply says: "If you want to use our code, you have to release your derivative code according to our rules. If you refuse to follow our rules, you cannot use our code. If that breaks your derivative code, that's your tough luck."

That's it. I didn't even need my law degree (called to the bar in 2000) to figure that out. It's jaw-droppingly simple.

And as for the forking issue, that is the entire point. Anyone can take Linux or GPL source and run off and do what they like and create what wild and crazy variations they like and sell it (as long as they follow the terms of the GPL). Not the same as Java at all.

>Brief simple-minded claims unsupported by legal
>authority are FOSS's greatest problem... not a solution.

>Daniel Wallace

So redundant verbosity = credibility? I still don't get your need to spam this pet theory of yours. Do you stop people in the grocery store and announce, wild eyed, 'FOSS is dead'? And, if it would get it out of your system ... would you?

Give me a cathedral over a bazaar any day. I can't think of a better situation than having a thoughtful, intelligent leader who considers all the input of the group and then makes moderate suggestions of what should be implemented. Linus is at the top because he's proven that he can make great decisions for such a large project. If he was ever to lose his naturally good judgement, he wouldn't be able to influence the multitudes of developers anyway. I count us as lucky to have him as long as he's willing to help.

> ".... how about having the courtesy to condense
> it down?"

Brief simple-minded claims unsupported by legal
authority are FOSS's greatest problem... not a solution.

Daniel Wallace

Danice Wallace, if you're going to cut and past your 'the world is flat' legal theories into every talkback how about having the courtesy to condense it down? Or maybe just a link instead? I don't understand your need to endlessly re-state it.

Thanks.

Linux is developed the way it is because it works, after a fashion.
Java is developed the way it is because it works, after a fashion.
Now which method is better is impossible to tell since Java and Linux do very different things.
If they were both operating systems, you might compare with a bunch of benchmarks, like number of computers installed with it, market share, job vacancies administrating it, whatever, and draw some conclusions. But they're not, so you can't.
This is a bit like saying my way of making ice cream is better than your way of making sports cars.

Perhaps Schwarz should put out the new open source Solaris with his preferred bazaar-like development model and show Linus and the rest of us how it's done.

But any time [Sun] try to use *my* work to justify retaining
proprietary control or argue that Linux is somehow less open, that's
either culpable stupidity or dishonesty and they should expect to get
kicked in the teeth for it by the entire open-source community,
starting with me.

Vintage ESR! Jonathan Schwartz chose the wrong book to subvert to his arguments, that's for sure.

When will people get it? Sun will *never* license
Solaris 10 under an OSI redistribution license.

FOSS is slowly moving towards extinction in the
United States. Open source licenses that attempt to
establish a public right of redistribution to
derivative source code through recursive contracts are
contrary to public policy as expressed by Congress when
it passed the Copyright Act. House Report No. 94-1476
states:

"Preemption of State Law. The intention of section 301
is to preempt and abolish any rights under the common
law or statutes of a State that are equivalent to
copyright and that extend to works coming within the
scope of the Federal copyright law. The declaration of
this principle in section 301 is intended to be stated
in the clearest and most unequivocal language possible,
so as to foreclose any conceivable misinterpretation of
its unqualified intention that Congress shall act
preemptively, and to avoid the development of any vague
borderline areas between State and Federal protection."

A FOSS initial developer or "preexisting author" is
attempting through a recursive adhesion contract to
leverage his lawful monopoly in authorizing derivative
works of his "preexisting" original work to control the
exclusive rights granted to all subsequent authors'
derivative modifications to that "preexisting" work.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled:
"The grant to the author of the special privilege of a
copyright carries out a public policy adopted by the
... United States Constitution, Art. I, 8, cl. 8, 17
U.S.C. 102. But the public policy which includes
original works within the granted monopoly excludes
from it all that is not embraced in the original
expression. It equally forbids the use of the copyright
to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not
granted by the Copyright Office and which is contrary
to public policy to grant." -- Lasercomb America Inc.
v. Reynolds 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990);

All federal circuits now recognize this "misuse of
copyright" as a valid defense to a copyright breach of
contract or infringement action.

The Copyright Act states:
"Section 103. Subject matter of copyright:
Compilations and derivative works.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work
extends only to the material contributed by the author
of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting
material employed in the work, and does not imply any
exclusive right in the preexisting material. THE
COPYRIGHT IN SUCH WORK IS INDEPENDENT OF, AND DOES
NOT AFFECT OR ENLARGE THE SCOPE, DURATION, OWNERSHIP,
OR SUBSISTENCE OF, ANY COPYRIGHT PROTECTION IN THE
PREEXISTING MATERIAL" (my emphasis).

The offeree who accepts a non-negotiable open source
license must not just grant a waiver of rights to
the offeror but must recursively offer a waiver to all
third parties of his exclusive rights -- "rights
against the world" -- granted by the Copyright Act.
It's one thing to waive a legal right in privity but an
entirely different matter to waive a lawful right
against the world.

"The doctrine of misuse 'prevents copyright holders
from leveraging their limited monopoly to allow them
control of areas outside the monopoly.' A&M Records,
Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1026-27 (9th Cir.
2001);" -- ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES OF WI, INC., 350
F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003)

It is the recursive offer to the general public that
violates public policy. The Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals in ProCd v. Zeitenburg, 86 F.3d 1447, stated:

"A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts,
by contrast, generally affect only their parties;
strangers may do as they please, so contracts do not
create “exclusive rights.” Someone who found a copy of
SelectPhoneTM on the street would not be affected by
the shrinkwrap license – though the federal copyright
laws of their own force would limit the finder’s
ability to copy or transmit the application program...
But whether a particular license is generous or
restrictive, a simple two-party contract is not
“equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the
general scope of copyright” and therefore may be
enforced.

A recursive multi-party contract is not a "simple
two-party contract". Someone on the street finding a
copy of a program licensed under (e.g.) the Common
Public License would be affected by its license offer.
It invites any member of the general public that finds
a copy of the license to join in its covered work and
become bound by its contractual terms.

The federal appellate courts will *never* enforce these
recursive form licenses whose primary purpose conflicts
with Congress' express wishes concerning public policy
about redistribution of derivative works..

Flaming the public forums or name calling of critics
(the typical response from open source advocates) will
not change the jurists' minds. Stare decisis, "stand by
that which is decided", prevails in the real legal
world.

Daniel Wallace

Sun has a problem, a big one at that. While they continue to attack Linux, they are doing nothing but scaring away possible customers. Most people are deploying Linux on web servers and such running on Intel hardware, while Solaris really shines on "big iron." What is Sun selling on the lower end that is competitive with Linux/Intel? Nothing, AFAICT. So what are they afraid of? Why not have a price competitive offering for the lower end, instead of spreading FUD, which will only serve to scare people away. If I were in the market for some big iron, I'd look to IBM before Sun, now that Sun is concentrating on FUD while IBM concentrates on business and technology.

Let's see how open-source Sun really is when it announces the actual licensing terms for open-source Solaris in the coming weeks. Maybe it won't be for 60 days, I now hear. Wonder why?

I tuned in to watch Sun's seminar, hoping I would -- gee, I dunno, see some of what Solaris 10 has to offer? Instead, it was "Bash Red Hat" day. Maybe Schwartz needs to take lessons from Steve Jobs on how to unveil products. I would not be surprised if the phrase "Red Hat" was mentioned significantly more during the presentation than the phrase "Solaris 10." They just didn't show us their product, or give us any reason to buy it (besides a minor DTrace demo); all they did was spread FUD

Part of the problem is that Sun lost out with the network externalities game. Linux is everywhere, Solaris isn't, and that adds value to using Linux because there are more people to employee, more support groups, more people working to support your weird hardware, and all the other accompanying benefits of a widely used system.

Let me guess, this Jonathan Schwartz is related to Scott 'Al Gore' McNealy, he of the memorable claim: "We Invented Open Source, Gang" - Oy! at least no one can criticize Sun for lacking what in some quarters would be called chutzpah.

Disdain for Linux and fence-straddling Open Source software in general isn't going to help Sun's case. Certainly not from the viewpoint of world governments (the largest employers) or the largest private corporations that don't hesitate to outsource jobs to lower costs. Imagine what the growing number of tight-budgeted middle and small sized businesses are thinking when they see more and more vendors supporting Linux and only a single vendor supporting Solaris.

Is this the same Jonathan Schwartz who last week was was chanting "Developers, Developers, Developers" while having a reporter from OSTG escorted out by security?

If ever there were a case of how people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones this is it. The JCP has been plagued for years and years by accusations of being too slow to adopt changes to Java, the very thing Schwartz is apparently saying is "wrong" with Linux. Sun needs to make its mind up about Linux, about open source, and about its role in the developer community. To distort ESR's Cathedral and the Bazaar like this seems deliberately to be poking a stick at a hornet's nest. It is difficult not to conclude that he seeks to provoke a response from Raymond himself.