harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sven de Marothy <s...@physto.se>
Subject Re: Questions about the Classpath license exception
Date Sun, 15 May 2005 01:35:56 GMT
As a Classpath hacker (but by no means an important one) 
here are my comments:

Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> - We don't want to modify any classpath code. If we need changes, we
> can work with classpath folks.
> - We don't want to add classpath sources to our tree. this will avoid
> local changes.

Well, those two are of course obviously what we'd like best too. 

> - We want to add classpath jar snapshots to our CVS/SVN (preferable).

I can't see why any of us would have a problem with that.

> - We want to add classpath jar to our installer to distribute a
> working JVM/JRE in a single download.

Kaffe, GCJ and SableVM (among others) already include most or all of classpath,
so again, this shouldn't be a problem.

> - We want to enable a commercial product to be able to sublicense the
> complete JVM/JRE.

(Now I could point out that Kaffe was, and GCJ still is a commercial product, but I'll 
choose to parse that as 'closed source product' :) )

This, too, has been done[1] with Classpath. (JamaicaVM) So from the class-library 
POV I don't think that's a problem either.

As far as I can tell, there really isn't any difference between the current Classpath 
license and the Apache license in *intent*. If they are incompatible, then it's due to
the wording, and something which shouldn't be hard to fix. 

The 'wishlist' I can think of is:

- Harmony choses to use Classpath :)

- The first two points of above

- If the Classpath license is changed, it must remain GPL-compatible.
(I.e. can be mixed with GPL code and the result released under the GPL)

- Harmonization of developer-demands. Classpath requires clean-room status 
(i.e. hasn't seen Sun's code) and FSF assignment (with rights granted back). 
Harmony will require some form of clean-roomness and an Apache licensing agreement.
Seems to me we could benefit from having some cooperation here so a developer could 'clear'

himself for both projects at the same time.

- A quick resolution to these issues :)

[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2002-10/msg00087.html


View raw message