harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Licensing/Community] Fresh start
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:33:06 GMT

i'd like a choice where i make changes to *ANY* code constituting *MY
VM* (that i am distributing/selling to my customers) and not have to
conform to anything other than ASL 2.0. would that be possible? This
is the current situation for all Apache projects.

This is exactly the same problem/scenario that we were presented with
Geronimo with SUN. After much wrangling, as of now anyone can make any
changes to Geronimo and ship it with their products and not have to
talk to SUN in any fashion/forum.

Again stating the obvios, *IF* there is a firewall, companies can
choose to build their stuff to conform to the firewall and Yes, i'd
like to make sure that firewall is *NOT* under GPL+Exception, but be
under something neutral like MIT/X. Which is exactly what Stefano and
Geir have been saying all along.

Yes, we can give our input in GPLv3 rounds and try to make things
happen. But i can't bet the farm that a GPLv3+Exception would be
palatable a downstream user of harmony. can i?

BTW, If i have to rip out gnu jaxp (to reduce footprint / remove hard
coded references to gnu jaxp), it means i am modifying classpath,
which means i have additional obligations under GPL.

-- dims

On 12/5/05, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:
> Hi Davanum,
> On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 09:45 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Personally, i'd like to see progress on the "VM Interface" ASAP, that
> > would go a long way to removing the mistrust. That would enable
> > harmony VM to use unmodified classpath stuff as-is for development
> > purposes and can act as a firewall till the licenses get sorted out.
> I am afraid this is ignoring part of the community trust issues and just
> hoping technology will solve it all. But sure, the current VM interface
> for GNU Classpath is described at:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/docs/vmintegration.html
> This is a living document and interface. We learn all the time about
> needs of different runtimes and execution engines. And new stuff gets
> added with each release of course. Just today a new section on the
> recently added instrumentation hooks was added (already in CVS, website
> will update in about 2 hours).
> > See snippet from Leo's email:
> > "Mark told me someone tried something like that a year or two ago
> > already. I forgot whom or what it was called, but I'd suggest trying
> > to learn about it and if it failed, why."
> I believe that was after 2 beers :) And I don't know exactly which part
> of the conversation this was about. I know I said how interesting it was
> the Anthony Green came up with freevm.org and now Stefano Mazzocchi came
> up with openvm.org. Both wanting to bridge the gap and bringing it onto
> a higher level to be "above all parties". In the end freevm.org both
> succeeded and failed. It failed because freevm.org is no longer, it
> succeeded because we decided we didn't need anything "above" GNU
> Classpath, gcj and Kaffe, but that we would just cooperate as is.
> > If i see some componentization such that i can drop in say
> > xalan/xerces and not use classpath's built-in stuff (this would end
> > users can mix and match stuff to make their distribution) that would
> > be even better. But "VM Interface" is priority #1.
> gcj for example has a switch/system-property -Dendorsed.dirs which
> allows for this.
> Cheers,
> Mark
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> iD8DBQBDlIcnxVhZCJWr9QwRAlovAKCfX0HDfd7vc9C3/y0fV4x5R4zMOQCggY7A
> ZMkkfSQmhMHuRJLZPUmvjZc=
> =lSja

Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

View raw message