Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of kumpera@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.207 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=emLr6YdzOYgPUOLo/G6J9RgEAEmZfwRUny3BGEndYSeGfPDWNmRin/8XMrkHXMaOs51NGqsQO/Cz0GoN3QpMB8N1WgkVSU5tlMtoRM0oVlC+KsiQ+7jQnPLEmrj2j++iTCHUO3LbkWFzD1LIzcXIbvP00k5AyraQbLXD1B7/vzU=
Message-ID: <8cca42d80512050415m252cce8cj26b6dfcf771cce86@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 10:15:14 -0200
From: Rodrigo Kumpera <kumpera@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is
 ;)
In-Reply-To: <19e0530f0512042113p3ba5aa01va10096922992d22@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4390671A.4020100@apache.org>
	 <20051203201625.GA17831@pogo.kaffe.org> <43921AC6.3080706@dedasys.com>
	 <9B8BBD4C-9A10-40DA-A771-A590214ADC02@apache.org>
	 <20051204123107.GA18769@pogo.kaffe.org>
	 <359D75A3-D4E1-42D4-9340-A0C10839700B@apache.org>
	 <1133717909.3036.27.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <980C9165-9C8F-4B2C-B880-13492F5E64B3@apache.org>
	 <20051205045938.GD17659@pogo.kaffe.org>
	 <19e0530f0512042113p3ba5aa01va10096922992d22@mail.gmail.com>

I wonder if the classpath vm interface classes where public domain
that issue would be solved. After all, there isn't much value, I
believe, on these classes only.


On 12/5/05, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, sublicensing. I believe the terms are not clear on how third
> parties can sublicense a composite of ASF-licensed works and GPL
> licensed works. IANAL and i don't understand it fully. But i was told
> that this is a problem and that problem is mitigated by the fact that
> Classpath is under GPL+Exception and a firewall can be set up by
> standard
> interfaces. That's why the VM Interface stuff is important.
>
> But even then, there is no guarantee that people will want to do it
> because they can't make a closed fork if they want to for whatever
> reason. (Which ASL allows and if people wanted to do that, they would
> already be participating in one of the existing VM's in the classpath
> galaxy).  Yes, i do want to enable people to download and use
> Harmony+Classpath together but in my mind that cannot be the only
> choice.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 12/4/05, Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 02:13:30PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Anthony Green wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 11:14 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > > >>That said, I think that to be fair, we need to distinguish between
> > > >>"using" in the sense of what GCC is doing  - a tool outside the sco=
pe
> > > >>of effort of the project enabling some behavior in a standard and
> > > >>non-
> > > >>intrusive way (just like we don't care about the license of the OS =
we
> > > >>run on), and "using" in the sense of developers of a project making=
 a
> > > >>conscious decision to design and implement software with a
> > > >>dependency.
> > > >
> > > >This is wrong thinking.  You aren't simply "using" the libgcc
> > > >routines,
> > > >as you would OS resources.  You are linking your application to the
> > > >libgcc library and redistributing the resulting combined binary.
> > > >This
> > > >is precisely what the license talks about and enables.
> > >
> > > Ok - while it's not exactly the same, the fundamental point I was
> > > trying to make is sound, I think, in that in writing my program, I am
> > > not at all thinking "hey, I'll use stuff from libgcc".  I'm just
> > > writing a C program.  After that, compiling and creating the
> > > executable is a second independent step - the receiver of the
> > > software has no burden to switch compilers wrt libgcc.
> >
> > He is talking about the binary, you're talking about the source. Reread
> > what he said with that in mind, and it should become obvious that you
> > are both right, since you are talking past him ;) But with respect to
> > ASF's (legally fine, just aparently ruffling a few feathers among less
> > C-aware members) usage of GPL+linked exception licensed code from gcc,
> > Anthony is correct, there is no doubt about it. Check out the gcc
> > changelogs, and you will find that he knows very well what he's
> > talking about with respect to gcc.
> >
> > >
> > > The license needs to allow this,  or using it would be a non-starter.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Whether or not you make a distinction between this kind of GPL
> > > >+exception
> > > >usage and libstdc++ or GNU Classpath usage hardly matters, since the
> > > >licenses themselves don't make a distinction.
> > >
> > > That would only be true if there is a standard interface / component
> > > model for the classlibrary so that there can be competing
> > > implementations and users have the ability to switch from one
> > > implementation to another without significant burden in the event
> > > they wish to make changes, additions or enhancements, and have the
> > > freedom to choose what they do with their work.
> > >
> > > That's why I think that the our componentization efforts are so
> > > important.
> >
> > You seem to have narrowly missed what Anthony said, and went on
> > a defensive tangent instead ;)
> >
> > You don't have to defend the usage of GPL+linking
> > exception licensed code by the Apache Software Foundation, all of us
> > non-Luddites here agree that the GPL+linking exception works as it
> > should and the binaries shipped by the ASF are fine.
> >
> > This stuff is easy, and pretty obvious to anyone with a dissasembler,
> > and/or insight about C compilers, so let's have the same rules that
> > allow httpd to ship their binaries using/incorporating
> > GPL+linking exception licensed code, ASF's flagship product, after
> > all, be officially ratified, as they'd allow us to do the same.
> >
> > Is there something left that would speak against using GNU Classpath
> > in Harmony, after we have established as a fact that the ASF is indeed
> > happily distributing code using code under the same sort of licenses
> > and has been doing so for years?
> >
> > If not, then let's do it.
> >
> > cheers,
> > dalibor topic
> >
> > >
> > > geir
> > >
> > > --
> > > Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> > > geir@optonline.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> > > geirm@apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>