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.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Slashdot | Sun Lowers Barriers to Open-Source Java