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: a harmonious and inclusive community
Date Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:01:47 GMT
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 04:19 +0200, Robert Schuster wrote:
> Does 'them' mean the VM interface? If yes, then I do not see a problem.
> IMHO we (=Classpath) should release the interface as MIT/X11 license or
> even place it in the public domain.
> Would that be a feasible option?

IANAL. But as far as I'm concerned, an API is not copyrightable* in
itself, so it's in the public domain to begin with.

I'd personally prefer not to put a license on this, not only because
it's redundant, but because Sun has expressed the legal fantasy that an
API is copyrightable. And I wouldn't want GNU Classpath to take an
action supporting that view, because in the same view Classpath is
infringing Sun's copyrights.

A better solution would perhaps to simply make a statement or affidavit
on the status of the API saying: "We do not believe this is
copyrighted." But let's leave that to FSF-legal.

Kaffe is under the GPL and implements a lot of the Java class library
APIs. Does that mean Sun's implementation infringes on the GPL? Or is it
Kaffe which is infringing? And Linux is infringing on The Open Group's
POSIX license. And so on and so forth. 

*Computer Associates International, Inc. versus Altai, Inc., (US 2nd
Circuit 1992) frames the issue squarely.


View raw message