What does "open-source" mean in the case of Java? In general, it's a little early to state very clearly what licensing technique we would use, although a strong leaning to an existing, well-practiced license is likely. But without being able to specify the license, I can't answer that question in very great detail.

What did Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz mean when he said he wants the Java code released as soon as possible? We will do it no sooner than when we can kind of measure what the community needs. Under those constraints, as soon as possible is accurate.

Is the need for faster innovation driving the desire to open the code? I don't think so. It's important to clarify that this is not a black-and-white situation. We have done a great deal in Java to open-source it, and this is the last bit that we're talking about here. It's hardly like this is new. I think people are making a much bigger story out of this than need be. The key reason we want to do this is to get Java in more people's hands. We don't have an innovation issue. In fact, sometimes we're told that people cannot digest the new releases, the rate of change, of software that comes out from the Java process.

What will open-source Java mean for CIOs? I think the positive message for them is [that] the likelihood of access and the growth of an industry that will give them competitive offerings is likely to increase.