harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org>
Subject Re: [legal] Mailing list policy
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:19:49 GMT
Hi,

On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 21:50 +0200, Leo Simons wrote:
> NOT A CONTRIBUTION*

LIKEWISE.

> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Just one little nitpick.
> 
> Heh.
> 
> > Could we not use the Apache License, Version 2.0. But state something
> > like "are in the public domain". (Or use APL/GPL-dual license, LGPL,
> > MIT/X, modern-BSD, etc.)  So that we can all use such contributions.
> > Most of the existing projects, like gcj, kaffe, cacao, jamvm, GNU
> > Classpath, etc. cannot accept GPL-incompatible code.
> 
> As the world currently spins, people that contribute to Apache do that
> with the common understanding that they're contributing stuff under the
> Apache License (makes some kind of sense doesn't it? :-)).

As one of the founders I was under the impression that Harmony is about
cooperation and building bridges first, and that we host the project
currently at Apache is just a happy coincidence. Apache is a nice
environment and infrastructure to have around a project. And it
certainly is of great marketing value. But half of the people that
signed the Harmony proposal don't have an Apache background. We all
joined because we wanted something that is more that just another Apache
project. We wanted to see GNU Classpath, gcj, kaffe, ikvm.net and all
the other free software projects to unite and work together with the
rest of the community, whether FSF, ASF, independent or corporate.

> I like the simplicity and I think we need that kind of simplicity.

That is why I proposed to explicitly state that public communication is
in the public domain.

> I don't want to think about the implications of something being
> submitted through e-mail having a different legal status than something
> submitted through an issue tracker or through SVN (and, heck, that stuff
> is submitted as e-mails automatically!)

Agreed. And Geir also stated that submissions to the mailinglist should
never be checked into a code base without all the necessary paperwork in
place.

> While I understand your rationale and goal, for the reason above I think
> such a move is a bad idea unless we actually dual-license all of Harmony
> and *all* contributions are under those terms. I'm not saying that's
> necessarily a bad idea (I'll be firmly keeping my non-existent opinion
> to myself on that topic, thank you very much! :-)), but it would
> certainly constitute, an, ehm, change.

But change is what Harmony is all about!
We are all changing because we are now cooperating.

So yes, my suggestion is that we make the rule for Harmony to only have
code contributions that are both GPL and APL compatible.

Whether we do that for now by explictly stating that all public works
are in the public domain, by dual licensing APL/GPL, using a modified
GPL-exception (like we do for GNU Classpath) or an APL with a Free
Software friendly patent retaliation exception (or just strike the
second half of clause 3), or use the license of Intel ORP or IKVM.NET as
compromise is just an implementation detail.

(Both of these last two licenses attached. I prefer the ikvm one.)

Just show that we are serious about cooperation by being clear about it
upfront. So that everybody can feel free to contribute to the
mailinglist of the code in the knowledge that it will be reusable by all
the projects out there and all the projects that want to cooperate on
this.

> * wonder how soon this becomes /really/ annoying ;)

I guess we can keep this up for months.
Just hack your mail client to have a TOP sig :)

Cheers,

Mark

-- 
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/

Mime
View raw message