harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dalibor Topic <robi...@kaffe.org>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: [jchevm] JCHEVM discussion]
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:22:33 GMT
Chris Gray wrote:

>>The key change is "and that implementation is not available under a
>>recognized Open Source license" - because except for copying, which we
>>don't allow, any ideas found in open-source-licensed source code are not
>>trade secrets and therefore able to be re-implemented by others in
>>independent, differently-licensed implementations.
> I do hope this is correct, because otherwise the pool of potential VM 
> developers is even smaller than we thought it was. 

Free software comes with the freedom to study it. It would be a sad
world if it was otherwise. Everyone would have to pick a single open
source project to ever work on in their whole life, etc. :)

The change is there because we want to avoid dealing with trade secrets,
NDAs, non-competition clauses, and similar legal minefields often found
in proprietary source code licenses. Those things are hard to deal with
in many, many ways.

Compared to that, free software is a walk in the park. Disagreements on
the authorship of works, like this one, should be easy to resolve
amicably, and I am glad everyone is making such a good effort towards
resolving it.

> Heaven help me (and Wonka) 
> if Dalibor finds out that for a few weeks at the end of the last century I 
> worked on a port of Kaffe ...

I am no fan of the legal theory of a copyright without any boundaries,
and Kaffe comes under a free software license allowing study & all that,
just like Harmony. :)

On a Harmony-unrelated side note, if you are interested in seeing your
port in the Kaffe.org CVS tree, and your contract allows for it, feel
free to send me the patch. :)

dalibor topic

View raw message