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: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:40:33 GMT

On Jul 20, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 10:40 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>>> That seems to be similar to how we (FSF/GNU) look at the CPL. It  
>>>> is a
>>>> free software license. But since it is incompatible with the GPL  
>>>> (has
>>>> different requirements on distribution) we are happy to use it for
>>>> standalone use in applications, but we won't use such code bases  
>>>> for
>>>> creating larger derivative works.
>>> Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to Harmony
>>> would
>>> be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
>> Allright.  I'll bite.  What's more liberal?  I consider that the AL
>> is the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the
>> users full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed
>> software, but with any derivative works or additional innovation they
>> may combine with it...
> Some examples are the MIT/X, "Modern" BSD, the IKVM and ORP license.

I'll buy that, except I'll note that the IKVM license isn't  
recognized as an OSS license by OSI (although there probably is a  
close one...) and the ORP license - the Intel Open Source License,  
has been withdrawn as a recommendation to try and limit FLOSS license  

> The ASL is definitely less "liberal" then any of the above since it  
> has
> extra requirements. Not that those extra requirements are such a bad
> thing. They seem designed to protect the free software community from
> loosing credit or distribution rights in the future. Just like the GPL
> adds some requirements to make sure all derived works will benefit the
> users and the community. But for example the patent-retaliation clause
> in ASLv2 is an extra restriction that isn't in any of the above and  
> that
> makes it GPLv2 incompatible.

Once you get it in GPLv3, all will be fine :)

(And then GPLv2 code will be incompatible with GPLv3 code?)


Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message