harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: CLASSPATH Licensing Issues (Was "Re: hi")
Date Sun, 22 May 2005 21:47:48 GMT

On May 22, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Dana P'Simer wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 17:30 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
>> crispyalien wrote:
>>> Hi, I am new here but I already have a stupid question ... :) ...Wil
>>> harmony use CLASPATH project or not?
>> Almost certainly. Read the archives.
> Hi, I am new here as well.  I have noticed that there seems to be a
> consensous that CLASSPATH is the way to go for the java(x).* classes.

GNU Classpath is our only option right now, and we're going to do  
what we can to use it, yes.

> CLASSPATH is licensed under GPL with a special exception allowing
> linking to independent modules to produce an executable.  Lets call  
> this
> GPL-.  It sounds alot like LGPL but that is not what the website says.
> How can Harmony use CLASSPATH if it will be licensed under the Apache
> License?  Three possible solutions come to mind:
>      1. Since it is GPL, Harmony could just depend on it.

Um, well, no :)

Don't forget that nasty viral stuff in the GPL :)

>      2. Harmony forks it and leaves it as GPL+.

I don't know what "GPL+" means, but Harmony will not be forking GNU  
Classpath.  If anything, we'll ensure that donations we get related  
to that area are usable by GNU Classpath if they want to.  We're here  
to work together as we can.  We may not solve the license problem,  
but that isn't why we're here.

>      3. Harmony forks it and relicense it to Apache License.


a) Harmony won't fork GNU Classpath
b) You can't relicense code like that.

> Option 1 seems good but would not allow harmony to get changes  
> specific
> to it's goals.  Option 2 has the same licensing problems as option  
> 2 but
> would allow harmony to make changes specific to it's goals.  Also
> Options 1 & 2 suffer from another stumbling block: some developers,
> particularly corperate sponsored developers, might not want to
> contribute to an LGPL'd product.  Option 3 does not seem possible  
> since
> that would require all contributors to the CLASSPATH project to agree.
> None of these solutions is optimal.  Another option might be to start
> with CLASSPATH as a base and develop a replacement library under the
> Apache License, a project I would be happy to contribute to.

For now, we are going to be working with GNU Classpath, and if I have  
my way ;) it will be through an agreed-upon interface that isn't GPL- 
ed so that GNU Classpath will just be a drop-in class library for us.

In parallel, we are working on resolving the licensing issues, but  
really trying to keep this from holding back technology collaboration.




Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message