Sun is misusing the GPL for Java: Part 2

Slashdot | Sun Lowers Barriers to Open-Source Java

Now for Part 2.

Last time I ran down what I see as the differences between the FSF and the ASF's handling of their communities as expressed in their respective licenses and practices. I feel they start from very similar places yet wind up in ones that, in a purely practical sense, function differently, even to the point of not being able to collaborate. This is a shame, but both groups have sound reasons for doing things their way. It makes it hard on those of us who want to participate in both, however.

When Sun announced the release of Java under the GPL, I was naturally delighted. Finally a free software system could include Java, finally the gray cloud hanging over Java developers with a conscience could finally dissolve, finally we could inspect (and even fix) core Java classes without fear of taint or lawsuit, etc. It was a good day all around.

Until the news dropped recently that Sun was changing the license terms of the Java Compatibility Kit (JCK). This was expected since the previous terms of the JCK's license conflicted with the GPL, but Sun went a step further and declared that only Java implementations "substantially based" on Sun's GPL implementation would get access to the JCK. This is a good thing, since people who patch Java can still get it certified as Java, including ports to different platforms and architectures, but it is also a big middle finger to all existing Java implementations, especially Harmony and Classpath. (Also, several projects trying to offer a free software JVM, like Kaffe and Japhar, are also affected.) Sun has effectively delegitimized these other efforts, saying, "They're not Java, they never were Java, and they never will be. There is only one place to get real Java, and it's from us."

The most important thing about Java in Sun's eyes has always been control: control of its brand, control of its implementation, and control of its uses. Java has never been nearly as open as some people would have you believe: the first version was licensed in frankly despicable terms, turning off a lot of interested developers who were willing to look past the ubiquitous and insipid hype. It's also easy to forget that for several years, Java was crippled by poor performance and buggy internals. Microsoft's JVM was preferred not because it was included in the OS (applets were already a dud) but because it was faster and more stable than the official. Naturally Microsoft sought to embrace and extend Java into something they could control, and of course Sun fought back and eventually won, but the damage to Java's reputation had been done. The development and later uptake of C# is significant also because it offered something developers needed: a Java that performed very well that hooked deeply into Windows.

Finally, Sun's obsessive compulsion to control all things Java retarded its development. Sun doesn't have the resources to push Java along nearly as effectively as a group of interested developers passionate about the technology. If Java had been GPLed in, say, 1997, it would be very different from what it is now. I'm not sure it would be the same thing at all, but I am sure it would be a better thing. With developer interest, a free software license, and tons of time to research and experiment, we could have things like a real native code compiler, streamlined and less bloated VMs, tighter class libraries, and a myriad of other pipe dreams we're probably never going to get now. The determination to do new language features like generics while preserving very strict backward compatibility guarantees has resulted in a clunky and difficult development environment; if the technology were under the control of a group that tried to do what was best for the technology instead of what was best for the interests of a tiny minority of its users, there would be at least a fighting chance to avoid a situation like this.

Sun has found a way to control Java by ostensibly setting it free, and they're doing it by using the GPL as a club. The GPL's copyleft was designed to preserve the Four Freedoms after the software left the hands of the original developer. Sun has turned it into a weapon against people who can't or won't develop Java according to their rules. They plan to "open" the Java community not by joining with the existing ones but by creating a new one and marginalizing every other existing one.

When I say "misusing the GPL", I mean that Sun is going against the spirit of it, not the letter of it. Sun has every right to take this action, and as a member of the FSF it's hard to find fault with it -- it's what I've wanted for years. But in my time in the ASF, I've come to appreciate the work they've done, and they have a legitimate beef with Sun over their conduct in the JCP and by talking out of both sides of their mouth with respect to the ASF's access to other TCKs. (See Geir's letter for more.) This, apparently, is Sun's response.

While the new Java may be a GPL world, there is reason to wonder why anyone at the ASF should spend further time working on Java. Sun has left them for good, and pending a licensing resolution with the existing Java code, it will be more difficult to construct a system with Sun and ASF code from now on. At the same time, Classpath stands to benefit hugely from this, again at Harmony's expense; fixing Classpath and Sun Java is very easy while fixing Harmony is that much harder.

I'll have to think about what this means for ASF.

Sun is misusing the GPL for Java: Part 1

Slashdot | Sun Lowers Barriers to Open-Source Java

I'm a proud member of the FSF as well as the ASF. For years, the incompatibility between the GPL and the ASL drove me nuts as well as many other developers. Building a complete free software Java platform is a Herculean task, and the duplication of effort between Classpath and Harmony struck me as needless. Of course the developers involved are free to do as they please, and I happily support any effort producing free software, but from the practical standpoint of just wanting one to use, neither had achieved parity with the Sun implementation. As a Java developer who wanted to make a living , I needed a rock-solid stable Java, and there just wasn't a free software option.

I don't believe there's any significant ethical difference between the FSF philosophy of free software and the ASF philosophy of open, community-driven collaborative development. I see it as two viewpoints on the same principle. Several developers work on projects for both organizations, and I know of no ethical conflict between doing so from anyone's perspective. However, the different emphases of both organizations, as expressed in their licenses, give rise to some annoying and probably unintended results.

Both the GPL and ASL are free software licenses because they protect the Four Freedoms, but the GPL uses copyleft to prevent someone else from restricting the Four Freedoms once it leaves the copyright holder's control. The ASL doesn't care about that beyond some patent restriction language that is not in and of itself a bad idea. The GPL is both a shield and a club: the shield protects the user from legal responsibility for the code and preserves the Four Freedoms for that user; the club is used to beat around the head and neck those who, having had the freedoms extended to them, would then seek to deny it to others. The GPL is the summation and distillation of everything the FSF believes in.

The ASL is emphatically NOT a distillation of everything the ASF believes. The ASF has tons of rules regarding how projects must be managed, handled, advanced, promoted, demoted, etc. These procedures are designed to ensure that any ASF project is developed in the open, that the community of users and developers can always be heard from, and that no project can ever be taken over by any individual or group hostile to the spirit of openness.

I think this is the key distinction between the two groups: FSF uses the GPL to control its community, ASF uses its culture and members to control the community.

I'm not trying to spark a debate about which is "better" or "more ethical"; again, these are different outgrowths of what I believe is the same thing, the love of what the FSF calls "free software" and what the ASF calls "open, collaborative software development". However, this doesn't mean that the different approaches work equally well in all possible situations.

Consider a software project whose copyright is held by the FSF. Anyone contributing to a FSF project must legally transfer their copyright on their contributed code to the FSF; this is done because the GPL copyleft is much easier to enforce if a single entity holds the copyright. The FSF cares about nothing more deeply than the Four Freedoms and will do anything it thinks is necessary to protect and defend them through the GPL. It's understandable that many individuals who would like to contribute to a FSF-controlled project cannot do so due to this restriction. For example, a programmer's company usually claims copyright on any code written while in the employ of that company, sometimes even code written on the programmer's own time and equipment. This programmer may not participate in the project through no fault of his own.

Also, imagine a software fork: the canonical example here is the Emacs/XEmacs division. The GPL protects the right to fork, and so XEmacs is just as legal as Emacs is. Without getting into the history of this rather ugly story, the FSF and Lucid, both acting in good faith, were unable to come to a consensus on the technical merits of Lucid's Emacs patches. The two projects forked, developed their own communities of users and developers, and continued on their separate ways. I'm not criticizing either program or either community; I only want to point out that the result of the dispute was a fork.

Contrast this to the ASF approach. ASF committers are not required to turn over copyright on their work other than under the terms of the ASL; however, ASL members must be individuals, not companies. Many contributors may insist on keeping their own copyrights, and the ASF allows this. ASF projects are controlled by a management committee, the leader of which reports to the Apache Board, and are answerable to the same. Major project decisions, such as releases, require a lazy consensus vote, and commits to a project require unanimous consent. Because the ASF puts so much effort into its community, forks and major disputes are much less common than in FSF-controlled projects; when they do arise, they are resolved not necessarily to everyone's satisfaction but to the point that the project may continue. For getting things done, this approach has obvious advantages. Again, the ASF cares about open development for its own sake and is less concerned with guaranteeing the FSF's Four Freedoms.

So what does all of this have to do with Java? My next post will discuss that, as well as ripping Sun a new one for misusing the GPL.