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: [legal] Mailing list policy
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:52:52 GMT

On Jul 20, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 02:40 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Jul 14, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 10:17 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really understand where you are coming from, and really thought
>>>> about how to present this, because there is no intent to stir up  
>>>> the
>>>> license wars again :)  I had just been receiving questions from  
>>>> many
>>>> people and organizations, and felt that we should just make it  
>>>> clear.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would love to discuss and exchange ideas with people
>>> about core library issues. How to best setup interfaces between the
>>> native platform, runtime and core libraries. And I saw some
>>> suggestions that I was about to comment on. But clearly if we are
>>> going the ASLv2 or the high-way route I won't participate in that
>>> (or at least not through this list).
>>>
>>
>> Ok - before we jump to this conclusion, can I ask why?  Can we come
>> up with some use-cases that illustrate the downside for you?  Is it
>> just "I won't grant a copyright license for code under AL2"?
>>
>
> That and I cannot currently accept contributions under AL2 since  
> almost
> all of the existing projects I work with cannot.

I understand that, but that only applies to code contributions made  
explicitly on the mail list.

How about any other use cases?

>
>
>>> Lets do that. Lets make a policy that means contributions can be
>>> shared with projects like GNU Classpath, GCC, Kaffe, CACAO, JamVM,
>>> etc.
>>> It seems that is what a lot of people have been wanting for a long
>>> time.
>>> To build a bridge between GNU and Apache. And that is why we started
>>> this Harmony effort in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> Any contribution *can* be shared with any other project.  If those
>> other projects don't like AL2, the contributor can be approached for
>> a license under GPL, for example.
>>
>
> But why would we want to make it hard for people to cooperate. We know
> people will want to use the results of harmony in the existing GPL
> projects. So why insist on a GPL-incompatible default policy and not
> just make MIT/X (or some other commonly accepted and compatible  
> license)
> the default for contributions?
>

No one wants to make it hard for people to cooperate, but we needed  
to clearly state the default policy.

That said, I'm certainly willing to work to accommodate.  I can't  
guarantee success, but I will work for it.

>
>> Now, given that we're rather attached to the Apache License
>> here at the ASF, I'm not sure we wish to tangle with getting dual
>> licenses for contributions *here*.
>>
>> However, that said, I would certainly encourage that the code also be
>> donated by the copyright holder under a mutually acceptable license
>> for use w/ GPL, although it would be done elsewhere.
>>
>> All of the above is hypothetical - me thinking out loud, at the end
>> of a long day, and I may have another opinion or a different idea in
>> the morning.  However, I do want to discuss options...
>>
>> Lets illustrate with use cases?
>>
>
> The use case is simple. Graeme and Tim posted some interesting  
> ideas on
> class library interfaces. Having worked on GNU Classpath I obviously
> have some experiences with that. And they do have nice ideas, and I do
> think we can prevent some pitfalls that we fell into with GNU  
> Classpath.

So far, I can't grok why you can't discuss those pitfalls.

> Now I would love to exchange some larger code samples with them as
> Graeme suggested. And I would even like to do that as part of Harmony.
> But with the current "default" policy I have to negotiate about. I  
> wish
> my time and energy was infinite. But since it isn't I like working and
> discussing code that I can actually use in my existing projects.

What do you have to negotiate?  We want to define an interface for  
the VM and Class library that is 100% usable by anyone and everyone.   
I always imagined that we'd define the interface, and then each do an  
independent implementation.

>
> Really using ASLv2 as default for this project is like putting up a  
> huge
> sign: "Proprietary software hoarders welcome! Long haired freaky GNU
> people stay out!". Which isn't fun since my best friends are long  
> haired
> freaky GNU people :)

You are one of my favorite long-haired freaky GNU people, and I'll  
note that no one will ever suggest that Dalibor has long hair...

Seriously... yes, proprietary "software hoarders" are welcome -  
remember, we're about freedom :)   Your problem with the ALv2 isn't  
that it allows hoarding, anyway...

geir

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



Mime
View raw message