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: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Date Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:14:28 GMT


Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>> simple = good :-)
> 
> :-)
> 
>> In any case, if an ASF officer needs to sign legal paperwork that is
>> unlike anything the ASF has ever signed before, you'll immediately notice
>> a slowdown of all processes since all of a sudden things drop out of
>> "internet time". This makes me instinctively dislike any process that
>> requires official action by an ASF officer.
> 
> OK.  Then we have to find a different solution than going through ICLA/SG.
> 
> If SableVM hosted an Apache License 2.0 on http://sablevm.org , then
> Harmony could regularly import that code (and modifications) into its
> repository.  This would be identical to reusing someone else's BSD or
> MIT licensed code, which Harmony already does.

Yes, that's true.... but it would run afoul of our concerns for IP 
provenance.  I'd be against this.

> 
> SableVM could also import back Harmony modifications in its svn, so that
> both projects keep a synchronized code base, avoiding an unnecessary fork.

We'll, it would be a fork.  A weird, "binar" fork, but a fork nonetheless.

And one that I think would fail over time, because we wouldn't be 
working together as one community.  We'd never make the hard decisions - 
we'd probably each decide to punt and "just do it in our repository".

> 
> Advantages:
> 
> - Harmony can still ship as a single, complete piece of software
>   including sablevm or parts of it, providing a complete J2SE 5.0
>   implementation under AL2 license.
> 
> - It is much easier to get Sun's TCK blessing a complete J2SE
>   implementation, than having to build the J2SE from distinct, separate
>   pieces (i.e. Harmony libs, SableVM vm, other downloadable separately
>   pieces.)

That's not true.  There is no requirement in the TCK license for any 
such thing.

> 
> - Increase cross-project collaboration, without the need for double
>   registration of contributors to both project.
> 
> - Still allows for mix and matching JCHEVM and SableVM code, as all is
>   license compatible.
> 
>>> It is very difficult to predict the future of any
>>> corporation, be it a private, public, profit or non-profit organization.
>> I am happy to predict though that neither Disney nor Microsoft gain control
>> over the ASF in the next millenium. It seems a safer bet than the weather :)
> 
> I predict the same; yet I know very few people that can truely claim
> 100% accurate predictions 1000 years in advance...
> 
>>> So, I feel very, very uncomfortable to give a blank check to anybody.
>>
>> Ok. Never licensed anything under the BSD license, have you? :-)
> 
> BSD still forces you to include the copyright and license notice.  This
> is much stricter than the ICLA/SG.  :-)

?

You are mixing apples and oranges, I think.  The ASF could switch to the 
BSD and still require the ICLA and SG.  The serve different purposes.

And notice how people have moved away from the notice requirements of 
classic BSD, mainly because it's a royal pain.

> 
> So, how about this new, more modest, yet hopefully simple proposal?

I'm not giving up, but if in the end we can't make ends meet, SableVM 
can stay put, and with the license change, be included in certified 
distributions of Apache Harmony.

geir

> 
> Etienne
> 

Mime
View raw message