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: [arch] VM/Classlibrary Interface (take 2)
Date Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:25:35 GMT

On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 05:53 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>> We seem to be giving mixed signals here. Can we try to coordinate a
>>> bit more on the policies we want to have for this project? Even  
>>> if we
>>> cannot agree on some things it would be good to setup some  
>>> resolution
>>> mechanism.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.  What do you suggest?
>>
>
> In this particular case I suggest we just do a vote.
>

While voting is a good way to come to a decision, we have to remember  
that we are working as an Apache project, and we need to be a bit  
more careful on how we go about this because the Apache License is  
the standard license for Apache projects and in the end, it's not up  
to us.  For example, even if we voted for the GPL as our default  
license, it wouldn't be permitted.

I see two solutions :

1) Find a license for list contributions that is acceptable to the  
wider community.  There have been a few good suggestions, and I'm  
doing some internal discussion to see what is possible.

2) Because the incompatibility between the ALv2 and GPL is such a  
small, obscure corner case (I tried to explain it to myself, and  
couldn't.. it's really subtle), a solution would be to have an  
additional statement for list contributions that resolves that  
issue.  I assume you'd be satisfied with that?



> It was pointed out to me that my suggestion of MIT/X as default  
> license
> is an acceptable choice for an incubator project:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/harmony.html#Licensing+awareness
>
>         Check and make sure that all source code distributed by the
>         project is covered by one or more of the following approved
>         licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or
>         something with essentially the same terms.
>
> Since MIT/X is listed as one of the choices I propose to use this  
> as our
> default license for all code that we accept for Harmony (and for which
> there is a Disclaimer/Software Grant/Contributors Agreement is on  
> file).
>
> +1
>
> I hope this is proper procedure.

Well, procedure is good, but the problem is that the point of that  
item on the checklist is no ensure that the code we distribute is  
appropriately licensed, not that we have the freedom to choose the  
license that we work under.  This item is for anything that the  
project chose to use from outside - that it needed to either  
distribute as-is or needed to make a derivative work of for some reason.

>
> In general I think we should try to explain the reasoning and goals a
> bit more. I get the feeling there is too much assumptions being done
> that things must be because that is how Apache does it.

Yes, we will default to the Apache rules, because this is a part of  
the Apache Software Foundation.  We are very interested in  
collaboration, and will address each issue that's raised by the  
community.

But things do take time, and you have to be patient.

> We are not an
> Apache project (yet?). We are currently going through incubation and
> might or might not come out as something that Apache wants as a  
> project.

To be precise, we are not officially a project of the ASF but rather  
are a part of the Apache Incubator project, so in fact, we are part  
of the ASF, subject to the decisions of the Apache Incubator PMC.


> If we are really serious about making this project a success then we
> should assume that the people participating want to know the  
> reasons for
> each decision. Even if someone feels that it is obvious because  
> that is
> the way Apache has always done it. Maybe we can even influence how
> Apache will do things in the future by reflecting on why something  
> is a
> "normal" guideline.

That's right, and that's why I posed the the rules, to be explicit.   
I knew that there would be conversation :)

>
> And if we really get into conflict with traditional requirements  
> for an
> proposed Apache project and the wishes of the contributors I am more
> then happy to setup a repository on some neutral machine so that we  
> can
> at least (temporarily) work on some code.

That won't be of interest to me.  Lets get things fixed here.

geir

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message