Apache’s Open Letter to Sun: Of Trees and Forests

Share via Twitter Share via Facebook Share via Linkedin Share via Reddit

While I have to be somewhat circumspect in my commentary on the matter, given the fact that I’ve had private conversations with folks on both ends of this issue, I’d be neglecting my responsibilities if I let Geir’s open letter (and FAQ, helpfully) pass without comment. For the sake of balance, Sun’s initial response can be found here.

The basic facts of the matter are not, as far as I’m aware, in dispute. It’s my impression, as an example, that both sides would confirm the timeline beginning back in August of last year. That the license contains “field of use” restrictions is indisputable.

What’s at the heart of the matter, then, are the implications of said restrictions. When the clause was first described to me, my initial impression was that it seemed fairly innocuous. As is often the case, however, the legal vernacular was obfuscating more profound and problematic implications. While I have not consulted legal counsel on the subject, in my opinion Apache’s read is accurate. This is from their FAQ:

A “field of use” restriction is a restriction that limits how a user can use a given piece of software, either directly or indirectly. To give a concrete example from the Sun / Apache dispute, if Apache accepted Sun’s terms, then users of a standard, tested build of Apache Harmony for Linux on a standard general purpose x86-based computer (for example, a Dell desktop) would be prevented from freely using that software and that hardware in any application where the computer was placed in an enclosed cabinet, like an information kiosk at a shopping mall, or an X-ray machine at an airport.

Quickly, it’s apparent that a seemingly harmless legal turn of phrase has profound implications for the viability of the Harmony project. Imagine the conversation Harmony would have to have with potential adopters: “Yeah, Harmony’s really great…yes indeed, we can indeed call it Java because we’ve passed the JCK, and it’s a great platform for…wait, you want to deploy to a kiosk? Sorry, can’t help you.”

Suboptimal, I think everyone can agree. The questions now are whether this was the appropriate strategy for Apache, and how Sun will proceed. As to the first, many of you may know that we at RedMonk are not big fans of the “open letter” approach. Some of the folks reading this, in fact, have probably been on the receiving end of criticism from us for just these types of missives. And while Geir undoubtedly expressed great restraint in composing this letter, it is not the letter that I personally would have composed. All of that said, however, I support Apache’s position here: I think they exhausted all of the options for appeal available to them, and did not take this step lightly or carelessly, understanding the potential impact. In short, I think this was perhaps the last avenue available to the Apache organization, and as such I cannot fault them for taking it.

As for the second question, and what Sun’s approach will be, I honestly cannot say. I’m sure one of the arguments that will be made is that the issue is a resourcing question: that the bodies necessary to effect a change in the license are currently committed elsewhere, on higher priority GPL efforts. To his credit, Matt asks for patience, saying that Sun “means well here and generally does well.” While I’ve been outspoken in the past in my defense of Sun and its motives, in this particular instance I have to side with Apache. It’s my belief that Sun has had the time necessary to address this situation, and that their lack of progress essentially forced Apache’s hand. Moreover, I think part of the problem stems from what I’d argue are unnecessary concerns on the part of Sun; much like I believe Microsoft should actively embrace and encourage Mono or a stronger overall ecosystem, I think Sun and Java would both benefit from a strong Harmony.

While I side with Apache in this particular debate, however, I think some of the commentary that I’ve read pillorying Sun is misguided. Think tree vs forest. Having had the opportunity to work with a variety of organizations on projects to open source previously closed source code, I can confirm that the process is often non-linear and always painful. This incident is unfortunate, and is as much a part of Sun’s open source personality as OpenSolaris, OpenSSO and so on, but for all of that it’s just one incident. Much as I’d like to be judged on my body of work rather than a single post, I’ll judge Sun’s openness – or lack thereof – on their history rather than a historical incident.

In any event, the ball is in Sun’s court now and like many, I’m interested to see how they respond. I sincerely hope as well that this does not negatively impact the upcoming JavaOne conference; the thought of having the “Sun is/is not open” conversation a few dozen times doesn’t really appeal. But maybe it’s just me.

Credits: I’d like to personally thank Geir as well as mjw, Dalibor, Michael, Donnie and everyone else participating in discussions on the subject in #redmonk today. It was of great benefit in helping to solidify some of my opinions on the subject, although I’ve covered a small fraction only of what was discussed.

Disclaimer: Sun is a RedMonk customer, as are a variety of other Apache member organization. Additionally, we have multiple non-financial relationships with Apache individuals that span a variety of Apache projects.


  1. By the way, Apache doesn’t have any “member organization(s)”. It has only individual members who are expected to act as individuals, regardless of who may be employing them. See:

    (I am sure you didn’t mean anything negative by that, but it is a common misconception that sometimes clouds people’s judgment about Apache.)

  2. […] After yesterday, I think my reasoning ought to be obvious. FAQ link for those new to the issues. Stefano and Ben, as always, find a satisfying way to put it, and Redmonk’s Steven O’Grady has a fair minded analysis. […]

  3. Joshua: thx, appreciate the correction. you’re right that i didn’t intend anything negative by it, just that many of our customers like Covalent, IBM and so on employ developers to work on Apache projects. but you’re correct, the distinction is important. apologies.

  4. […] Stephen O’Grady has posted his take on the debate between Apache and Sun that recently went public with an Open Letter to Sun. Apache’s Geir Magnusson has also posted a public FAQ to explain further. Posted by md on April 11th, 2007 | Filed in Open Source, Open Standards, Sun | […]

  5. I don’t understand Apache’s issues – the code is GPL, they can ship a product without any obligations to call it Java, it is completely free and open. It seems like they are taking issue with the license Sun chose, and the fact that Apache is incompatible??

  6. Geir adds more explanations in this excellent feathercast:

  7. […] who have no love for Sun, and no, the company is not perfect in its open source conduct (e.g. my thoughts on the Apache flap, although as an aside the Apache and Sun folks were very cordial with one […]

  8. […] Sun has been accused on multiple occasions in the past of refusing to let go. See, for example, the dispute with Apache on the field of use restrictions, the long running but recently resolved divide between IBM and Sun […]

  9. […] We give back, by doing what we can by going to bat for various open source communities both publicly and behind the scenes, commissioning plugins like Progressive License and building out sites like […]

  10. […] we do. This is why we help the developers that we know get free gear. This is why we will argue on behalf of open source foundations, even against our own clients, if necessary. This is why we do podcasts and […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *