Fight for your Freedom

Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:08:19 GMT

I was looking at the new Windows Live Messenger application that Microsoft released to replace the MSN Messenger. One of the things that I found really odd is that on of the terms on the EULA (End User License Agreement) states:

2. HOW WE MAY MODIFY THIS CONTRACT.

We may change this contract at any time. You must review this contract on a regular basis. You can find the most recent version of the contract at 'http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Terms.aspx'. The changed contract is in effect right away. If you do not agree to changes in the contract, then you must stop using the Service. If you do not stop using the Service, then your use of the Service will continue under the changed contract.

So, once you accept the first version of the EULA, they are free to change it anytime and it is our job to check for any changes? Not only that, if we fail to check the contract the day it was changed, we automatically agree to the new terms? Is this even legal?

It is incredible how more and more corporations are trying to control everything you do on a computer, and care more about profits and revenues than actually providing a useful service to its consumers. And the worse part is that I read this term just after reading the Wall Street Journal article " Zen and the Art of Classified Advertising".

It makes me wonder about the ongoing battle that has been going on between big corporations (Microsoft, music labels, movie studios) and open source advocates for the control of a consumer PC.

Big corporations want to control everything you do on your computer (examples of this: DRM, CSS, phone-home windows update, etc) so that you really don't have control over what you legally own. By trying to modify the law, they are setting the stages so that if they find a new way to increase revenue, they can just change their licensing terms, or access your computer and change how software works. Imagine a cable bill that comes with an extra hundred dollars, and when you ask the cable company why the extra charge, they tell you "Oh, we changed the terms so now every time you change channels, an extra dollar is added to your account. If you didn't agree with these terms, you should've terminated your contract the day we changed the terms. It was your responsibility to keep track of these changes, you know. It's the law".

Open Source Software, even better than being free (or at reasonable costs), what really gives you is Freedom. Freedom to be the true owner of your computer and your (legally acquired) media. Freedom to do your daily tasks, listen to your music, watch your movies, interact with other people, etc. without a third party interest on what you are doing. By encouraging open standards that trascend companies or organizations, OSS really cares about its consumers, not making a profit everytime the format is changed. OSS gives you Freedom to have privacy and security over your information and your (perfectly normal) habits.

What "Open Source Java" (should) really mean

Tue, 16 May 2006 22:25:45 GMT

I just saw the live webcast for JavaOne's General Session on the future of Java, and I must say I'm a little saddened by it. I never thought I'd ever hear the words "Visual Basic for Java" mentioned anywhere, even less so in such an important event as it is JavaOne. In my very personal opinion, the fact that Sun is even considering letting VB programmers come near a java-based application means that Sun feels it's losing the battle against Microsoft, which I don't think is the case. I'm still in shock over the news.

Another part of the Session talked about how Sun is planing to 'Open Source' Java. They mention (of course) that most of Java is Open Source already, with big projects like Glassfish (Sun's new version of the JEE Application Server that previously was closed source) and even the next version of the jvm code (which is available through a Java Research License which, although not exactly OSS, at least it lets people contribute back to the development of Java). In fact, I would say that right now there's hardly a Java-related product from Sun that you can't find the source code under one of Sun's licenses.

So, what does the community really want when they cry 'Open Source Java'? This is a difficult question (even for Sun, it's my guess), since Java really applies to several things. We really have to divide the Java universe in its different components:

Java The Language Specification
Java the Virtual Machine Specification
Java the Standards (in all its incarnations, J2ME, JSE and JEE, and all the related libraries)
Java the Products (the actual JDK/JRE applications, the Application Servers, etc)
Java The Trademarks

From this list, we can see Sun has already opened the decision-making process on several of its components, like the Standards and the VM specs (through the new Mustang research license) and it is also distributing most of their major applications as Open Source (or at least something as really close to open source as it can be for Sun). But also from this list we can see that Sun is really keeping close tabs on very important parts of Java, which are the Language Specification (they are the only ones who decide what new language features are going to be implemented) and the trademark (no one can say something is Java or Java-compatible without Sun's permission).

So, what does "open source Java" really means to me? Well, it's really simple, although unlikely to happen anytime soon. Open Source Java would mean opening up the Language specification improvement/maintenance process, and allowing a separate body decide where a Java trademark can be applied. Basically, establish a separate organization (let's call it "The Java Foundation") that takes control over anything Java related, and establishes a Member Board of Directors composed of the different leaders in the Java industry, not just Sun. In short, something very similar to what IBM did with Eclipse, or what AOL did with Mozilla (both very successful community projects, I might add).

Establishing a non-profit corporation that takes the ownership role of Java, ensuring that everything moves forward and that any trademark is properly licensed is, in my opinion, the best long-term solution for Java as a whole, even if it wouldn't mean anything good for Sun. As a separate entity from Sun, Java would be even more successful, since it could really focus on the community as a whole, instead of only focusing in Sun's (and Sun's shareholders) interests.

Do I see The Java Foundation created anytime soon? Not likely. Sun is still too embeded with Java to make it happen. I'm afraid that "VB for Java" isn't the last flop we'll have to endure for our beloved Java.

JavaGeek.org - rants tag

Fight for your Freedom

What "Open Source Java" (should) really mean