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 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:06:29 GMT
Hi Archie!

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 06:15:41PM -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> >1- I do claim shared copyright on JCVM/JCHEVM.  I do not and will not
> >back down from this.
> >
> >2- As far as I can tell from the above, both the ASF and Archie Cobbs
> >seem to agree to acknowledge this shared copyright.
> 
> Um, I think I agree... so what is the practical import?
> 
> In other words, if JCVM/JCHEVM can be licensed under the
> Apache license, then I'm satisfied. I don't plan on ever
> trying to take this stuff "closed source" or whatever.. so
> anyone else sharing copyright shouldn't matter (to me) right?

I think I somewhat understand your feelings (I myself don't usually give
a rat's ass about copyright on my original works, I care about sharing,
getting credit for what I do, having fun working with others, and not
getting sued anywhere in the process), but as I understand the positions
involved and the dialogue so far, the difference *does* matter (if not to
you, to the SableVM contributors, the harmony project, our users, and to
the ASF, and to you as "person who has signed a CLA and is bound by the
agreements in it").

If (in general) you acknowledge copyright of any third party on the works
you contribute to the ASF we automatically have a serious problem, even if
that third party is, for example, me (I'm an example of someone who has
signed an ASF CLA and doesn't usually care much for keeping my own
copyrights but has not sent in a harmony ACQ and has not contributed
code nor any kind of IP to the harmony project), if I did not seperately
contribute my stuff myself. At that point we need things like a code grant.

Unfortunately, "copyright" has become this tricky thing that you can't just
"agree to share with everyone and just get along with your life". You can do
things like assign it to another party, grant other people licenses, etc.,
but you have to be very careful even when you do stuff like that.

> >3- The only "obscure area" that is left (i.e. an area where there is no
> >explicit agreement between all involved) is: which exact parts can be
> >claimed "independent" work and which cannot not.  It seems easier to
> >agree to simply state the shared copyright on JCHEVM and leave the
> >detail of exact files and lines out.  Personally, I claim co-ownership
> >on the whole derivative of SableVM.  I am sure Archie Cobbs would do the
> >reverse.  Unfortunately, it would probably be quite difficult to settle
> >this out of court.  Do you really want this to escalate that far?
> 
> I agree it would be messy to try to separate it out, even though
> most of JCVM is not derivative (e.g., the garbage collector, weak and
> phantom reference support, finalization support, bytecode interpreter,
> ZIP file reader, class file parser, class loader and resolution code,
> class file dump tool, javah tool, JAR file launcher, heap structure,
> Thread.interrupt support, reflection support, signal handler, etc.).

If in the sentence above you mean "not derivative" as being opposed to
"derivative" in the sense of that word in the legal phrase "derivative
work" then that's an important difference from what you've asserted
previously. If you mean "derivative" as in "inspired by" or as in "based
on ideas from" then that's fine. It is precisely this difference which is
very important (legally), so weigh your words carefully!

cheers,

Leo

Mime
View raw message