harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: [jchevm] JCHEVM discussion]
Date Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:46:12 GMT

Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Hi Dalibor, Leo, and all,
>  Archie wrote:
>    3. So what do we do? My wish is to give SableVM the benefit of the
>       doubt.  If there's something in there they claim is "theirs", we
>       can take it out and replace it. I'd rather do that than argue
>       about it. We should remember that JCVM owes SableVM a debt of
>       gratitude and respect their wishes.
>  Etienne wrote:
>   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.
>  Geir answered:
>   That's excellent!  I see no problem with that.  We traditionally give
>   credit where credit is due for anything we redistribute.
> So, just to make things Cristal clear:
> 1- I do claim shared copyright on JCVM/JCHEVM.  I do not and will not
> back down from this.

In interpret this claim to be for some number of specific areas, such as 
threading and locking, and some others which we haven't quite nailed 
down yet.

> 2- As far as I can tell from the above, both the ASF and Archie Cobbs
> seem to agree to acknowledge this shared copyright.

No.  I hope this doesn't appear to be harsh, and I'll explain after, but 
I need to make this clear :

The ASF does not at this time acknowledge the validity of your claim of 
shared copyright.  We acknowledge that you have made a claim, have taken 
the step of immediately ceasing any distribution of the disputed code, 
and are making our best effort to get to the bottom of the problem with 
the intention of arriving at an amicable and mutually agreeable solution.

When I said "That's excellent!...." that was my "run for the airport" 
message - I meant that if you dual-licensed the code, we'd have no 
problem in acknowledging the authors of code we redistributed or made a 
derived work from.  Sorry if I was confusing.

> 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?

No one wishes to escalate anything - I'm sure you don't, and I'm sure 
that we don't.

> 4- Once this shared copyright is acknowledged, there is a license issue
> to solve.  The ASF has not been given a permission by SableVM authors to
> distribute the derivative work, namely JCHEVM, under the Apache License.
>   This is where I am amicably proposing a hopefully elegant solution: to
> ask SableVM authors to give such permission, so that we can all go on
> with our lives and continue development.  Anyway, I have made SableVM
> Free/Opens Source so that people can copy, share and derive code from
> it; I see no reason not to let people do so.  All I am asking for is a
> little respect of my copyright on software to which I have dedicated
> years of work.

And we are certainly working to do that.

Suppose we do this (and this is me just throwing out solutions for 

Instead of you having to go through the labor of finding all the 
contributors to SableVM to make such a licensing statement, why not do 
it for the thread and lock code? Do it under a license such as MIT so 
it's compatible with the LGPL (or dual LGPL + AL ) and then we will give 
credit to the authors and the project.

If that's ok, and further, that makes you comfortable to drop #3 above, 
does this solve it for all?


View raw message