harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org>
Subject Re: Problems/Issues/Questions
Date Wed, 11 May 2005 13:41:39 GMT

> Facts:
> - GNU Classpath is *NOT* GPL. It uses GPL+Exception 
>   (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html)
> - FSF owns copyright for GNU Classpath 
>   (example see http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/*checkout*/classpath/classpath/java/lang/Object.java?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain)
> - The Exception clause was a joint effort with RedHat 
>   (as explained by Anthony -
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200505.mbox/%3c1115497520.4768.218.camel@localhost.localdomain%3e)

Later updated/clarified a bit for the SableVM hackers so we could also
accept their contributions.

> - Any ASF contributor if they want to make changes to CLASSPATH, will 
>   have to adhere to the clean room clauses
>   (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/faq/faq.html#faq3_2)

I updated that FAQ entry just now. Hopefully it is much clearer about
what the ideas behind the rules are. I think it says the same thing as
what the Harmony proposal actually says: "Be careful, please".

> - For any contributions to classpath there has to be a copyright 
>   assignment to the FSF. ASF does not ask for copyright assignment by default
>   as explained by Sam in a previous thread.
>   (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/faq/faq.html#faq3_4)
>   (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200505.mbox/%3c427D2A2C.9050905@apache.org%3e)

The paperwork, assignment, company disclaimer, isn't that different from
the current Apache paperwork. And the intention behind it is the same.
Also note that in the case of the FSF paperwork it is a two-way
contract. You promise that you are entitled to contribute, the FSF
promises you to grand back your rights to your contributions and that
the FSF or any successor of the the FSF will always distribute your work
or derivatives under free terms.

> Issues and possible solutions:
> - Any source code or Jars under GPL cannot be checked into ASF CVS. 
>   One possibility is for FSF folks to publish maven snapshots of 
>   the daily build.

The only parts of GNU Classpath that are under the GPL are the tools,
which are currently distributed separated from a separate CVS module.
And the GNU Classpath Examples, which we could split off into their own
module if that makes people happy.

I don't know what maven snapshots are, but we can certainly create and
distribute daily snapshots. The FSF doesn't distribute binaries though,
only source archives.

> - Need to check if the classpath jars can be part of a install package 
>   from ASF Legal folks. Problem is we don't want users do download two 
>   things from two places to get a working JDK/JRE. One solution is the 
>   shared classpath instance model where many VM's share the same 
>   classpath jar. this may reduce the problem, but not an ideal solution.
> - Classpath was once LGPL, but ASF/FSF still needs to resolve issues
>   around it, so even that may not be open for the short-term.
> - It may or may not be very difficult to add/change the Exception clause
>   to make it easier to develop/ship/use code. Need ASF legal and FSF 
>   legal folks to chime in.

Is there any issue with the exception statement? I was under the
impression that it was fine. How would those issues be resolved by
distributing under the LGPL?

> Question from the point of view of a potential user of Harmony:
> - Same question i asked for Geronimo...A specific product in my company
> needs Java's, currently we ship JVM from [SUNW/IBM] by default.

Little nitpick. If you need Java (tm) then we (FSF/ASF/Harmony)
currently don't offer you that. We do have gcj, GNU Classpath and Kaffe,
but none of them claim to be Java.

>  This 
> product is NOT positioned as a JVM/JRE engine and NO claims of Java 
> compliance is made. We want use Harmony+Classpath as the default JVM for 
> our product. We will comply with ALL requirements of ASL 2.0 under 
> which Harmony is licensed. We DON'T want to talk to SUN/ASF/FSF or pay 
> them any money (we don't pay SUNW now!!), we DON'T want to run the TCK's 
> before we ship the product. We just want to use Harmony as-is BUT we'd 
> like to issue some patches to our customers if necessary for product 
> support. What are my additional obligations because of Classpath 
> which is the default library in Harmony?

Assuming that the whole stack is Free Software I think there is no
problem at all with this scenario.

> (ones that are not applicable to  other ASF projects)

You might want to explain this if you want this to be a more formal
question for FSF legal.



View raw message