harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com>
Subject Re: [legal] Mailing list policy
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:50:18 GMT

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Just one little nitpick.


> On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:22 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>The terms and conditions that apply to  
>>your Contributions are defined by either a contributor license  
>>agreement (CLA) signed by you and/or your employer or, if no such CLA  
>>is on file at the Foundation, by the terms and conditions of  
>>Contributions as defined by the Apache License, Version 2.0.
> 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? :-)).

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

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!)

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.



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

View raw message