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)
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:11:22 -0500
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Full disclosure
In-reply-to: <1133532790.3063.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-id: <3C32AD9D-8259-4102-9141-0CB9EDC27C5A@apache.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <20051128151614.GE18332@bali.sjc.webweaving.org>
 <1133420625.3024.56.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <438F2831.7090309@apache.org>
 <20051201184704.GA26688@pogo.kaffe.org>
 <1133532790.3063.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Anthony Green wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:47 -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>
>> Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for
>> that to happen,
>> and get us rolling forward in that aspect as well.
>
> Rather than dual license the code, maybe switching to LGPL+exception
> would be better.  The GNU FOO+exception licenses say that you can
> redistribute using the FOO license at will.
>
> But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this?   
> AFAICT,
> many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free
> class library project.

But others do, so if we can use both, we can give people the choice  
to work on what they want, and users to use what they want.

geir

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