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: [arch] VM/Classlibrary Interface (take 2)
From: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <F52E82DE-FADF-42F7-A31E-989E2F1603AB@apache.org>
References: 
	 <OFCD7E9468.8263BA61-ON8525703D.005CCAC9-8525703D.0060E73F@ca.ibm.com>
	 <42DBDD49.8050701@gmail.com>
	 <50FC88E5-63F2-4780-9FF2-2B6FF4C5D166@apache.org>
	 <1121900132.7915.34.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <F52E82DE-FADF-42F7-A31E-989E2F1603AB@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7jL3S8jLPsJnfbmIaaNX"
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:01:25 +0200
Message-Id: <1122066085.7915.278.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0

--=-7jL3S8jLPsJnfbmIaaNX
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 =20
> > bit more on the policies we want to have for this project? Even if we =20
> > cannot agree on some things it would be good to setup some resolution
> > mechanism.
>=20
> Agreed.  What do you suggest?

In this particular case I suggest we just do a vote.

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.

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. 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.
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.

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.

Cheers,

Mark

--=-7jL3S8jLPsJnfbmIaaNX
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)

iD8DBQBC4V6lxVhZCJWr9QwRAp6yAJ9gBgjsO9CaMvJQI3m0DOlXpN/LJwCfUvVV
9pVtaIbQILMVGtaVrg8muNA=
=aPUB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-7jL3S8jLPsJnfbmIaaNX--