Is Sun good for Java?

IN THE OPINION of most observers, Java owns the enterprise software market. It achieved that ownership primarily through the worthwhile efforts of heavyweights Sun Microsystems, IBM, and BEA Systems. J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition) has gained a strong foothold in corporate IT as a comprehensive cross-platform framework for enterprise applications.

Despite this success, Java kingpin Sun is drawing increasing criticism. Licensees and open-source advocates rail against Sun’s control of the JCP (Java Community Process) and claim Sun’s certification requirements intentionally shut out free implementations of J2EE. Whereas several Java licensees have signed up with the Web Services Interoperability consortium (WS-I), Sun has not. And a new civil lawsuit brought by Sun seeks to force Microsoft to distribute Sun’s Java run time with Windows. Sun deserves credit for the invention and expert stewardship of Java to date, but we wonder whether Sun’s latest moves are in Java’s best interest.

Tom: IT managers, software architects, and developers look to Java as a paragon of openness in a market awash in proprietary technology. Sun has worked hard to promote this aspect of Java, yet in some ways the company seems to work against Java as an open platform. Early on, Sun withdrew Java from the public standards process and opted instead for something it calls the JCP (Java Community Process). Sun is constantly criticized for wielding too much control over the JCP, even though Sun points to its existence as proof of Java’s openness.

P.J.: What exactly is an “open” platform or standard, anyway? Java isn’t a publicly owned technology; rather, I’d argue that it’s Sun’s most valuable asset for the next several years — unless StarOffice takes off, which will only happen in my dreams. This doesn’t mean that Java is entirely Sun’s creation. If it weren’t for the contributions of Java licensees — including small-time players such as IBM — Java might not be relevant today. Sun is obliged to take a leading — even a controlling — role with Java. The phrase “intellectual property” implies something more than mere stewardship.

Tom: Java is a vital hedge against Sun’s declining hardware revenues. It must protect that property. My problem is that Sun tries to play both sides of the issue. Sun claims that Java is open and standardized and then tightly controls the specifications and the standards process. It brags about a level playing field and then makes it virtually impossible for smaller players (such as the open-source JBoss app server) to obtain critical J2EE certification. Cost is a major inhibitor to J2EE adoption. Customers would benefit greatly if Sun revised its licensing and certification to encourage open-source and small development shops.

P.J.: Now I’m torn because the skinflint in me detests the idea of just giving away the farm. But I agree that Sun could, if it really wanted to, open up the certification and licensing process somewhat, without any danger of major revenue loss. On another hand — I’m up to three hands now — the current situation hasn’t stopped small fry, either. Some developers are taking a chance on the JBosses of the world, and others aren’t. People are obviously willing to pay for J2EE, so why should we stop them?

Tom: Sun’s welcome to do what it likes, but it can’t expect to escape criticism when it behaves badly. When the WS-I, which includes Java licensees, was coming together, Sun was busy discounting Web services as a fad. Now Sun loves Web services, always loved Web services, and insists on being welcomed to WS-I as a founding member, claiming that WS-I is invalid unless it properly exalts Sun. Sun’s position on WS-I is as indefensible as its lawsuit to force a competitor (Microsoft) to distribute its software, ostensibly because Java rival .Net is evil. Sun’s image as a champion of open software is looking more like Dorian Gray’s portrait.

P.J.: Sun may be late to the WS-I party, but is that any reason to give away its seat at the table? Besides, vendor consortiums always strike me as being more about political jockeying than the advancement of technology. Too often they become excuses for junkets whereas the real work is happening in an unglamorous lab. This latest lawsuit does nothing for me, and I’m not sure what it does for Sun, either.

But .Net — although evil it’s not — is Microsoft’s latest attempt at complete world domination, no doubt about it. This is business, and to some degree it’s a death match between Microsoft and Sun. I’m not sure how many people buy the idea of Sun as a champion of openness in the first place, so please don’t make the company sound like some sort of fallen idol. It’s just being ruthless in order to survive.