Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
From: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <66621B04-0F91-437C-996A-55521F913F17@apache.org>
References: <42C41E53.8060903@gatewide.com>
	 <1120199237.9489.19.camel@localhost>
	 <4dd1f3f005063023406b6c2e1a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1b3e8afb0507010205425ab34d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4dd1f3f0050704221737722482@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1120668053.6038.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <42CC19CB.6050803@kaffe.org>
	 <66621B04-0F91-437C-996A-55521F913F17@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kYN+MSoAYRnLot44qLCV"
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:31:34 +0200
Message-Id: <1121880694.4759.217.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0

--=-kYN+MSoAYRnLot44qLCV
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 =20
> > would
> > be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
>=20
> Allright.  I'll bite.  What's more liberal?  I consider that the AL =20
> is the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the =20
> users full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed =20
> software, but with any derivative works or additional innovation they =20
> may combine with it...

Some examples are the MIT/X, "Modern" BSD, the IKVM and ORP 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.

Cheers,

Mark

--=-kYN+MSoAYRnLot44qLCV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBC3op2xVhZCJWr9QwRAovoAJ9gKfg2xemCUTmp5YD9efdftndKHwCcCNt4
3WWbB2GqBZKEFnxWbK6fcTM=
=5JsW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-kYN+MSoAYRnLot44qLCV--