harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: [jchevm] JCHEVM discussion]
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:04:49 GMT
Hi everyone,

I am not a laywer. I don't play one on TV, though I've played one on
stage a few weeks ago.

If I understand correctly, determining whether codebase A is a derivative
work of codebase B is somewhat hard work. We have a codebase B in the
Harmony tree and a contributor to codebase A asserting that codebase B is
a derivative of codebase A, with codebase A under a
non-apache-license-compatible license.

We have therefore closed off all access to codebase B but have not verified
this assertion. There is some history here with codebase A and B which is
becoming clearer through mailing list discussion.

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 10:44:56PM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> See below.
> >> So, if the Harmony project has no problem acknowledging the shared
> >> Copyright of SableVM authors on JCHEVM, I will get in touch with these
> >> authors to get their consent to a license change.
> > 
> > That's excellent!  I see no problem with that.  We traditionally give
> > credit where credit is due for anything we redistribute.
> Great!  Then I'll get on with that task.  Please understand, though,
> that it might take one or two weeks to resolve (hoping I am not too
> optimistic).  Some copyright holders might be difficult to reach.  I
> will do it as fast as I can.

Do I understand correctly that rather than go through the motions of
actually having to go through the painful route of proving or disproving
this derivative work assertion, we are going to try and make codebase A a
contribution under an apache-license-compatible license?

I must say it sounds very tempting (I really don't want us to waste time
and energy on (dis)proving something if we don't have to. Writing code
is just much more fun) but I don't fully understand if this is enough
"due dilligence" on the ASF side. Can we leave this infringement claim
"hanging around" and just jump to "fixing the problem even if it might
not actually be one, since it has some nice side effects"?



View raw message