Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 64.74.244.71 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of geir@pobox.com)
Message-ID: <44242E8C.9040406@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:38:20 -0800
From: Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>
Reply-To: geir@pobox.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
References: <442168FC.1020208@sablevm.org> <4421A3B6.1060007@pobox.com>
 <44224CE8.1030308@sablevm.org>
 <20060323090021.GB1464@bali.sjc.webweaving.org>
 <4422BF83.5000706@sablevm.org> <20060323174615.GA13514@pogo.kaffe.org>
 <20060323211233.GC19998@bali.sjc.webweaving.org>
 <20060323215750.GA23518@pogo.kaffe.org>
 <20060324121331.GB39290@bali.sjc.webweaving.org> <4423F64E.9070500@kaffe.org>
In-Reply-To: <4423F64E.9070500@kaffe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> 
>>> , that that can
>>> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
>>> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a say in
>>> it.
>>
>> No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at a 
>> minimum
>> have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and 
>> then apache
>> would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache 
>> license, and
>> what that means is rather clear.
>>
> 
> It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it 
> out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license of a 
> VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?

No.

> 
>>> I'm asking since going to court over disagreement of Kaffe's 
>>> license's effects has been explained to me by some SableVM developers 
>>> as a possible consequence of using SableVM's code in the past
>>
>> I have no idea what "Kaffe's license's effects" means. 
> 
> Some SableVM developers have asserted in the past that running some 
> applications on top of a GPLd VM constitutes a crime, which could be 
> avoided by using SableVM, rather than other VMs.

I think the crime was putting a VM under the GPL ;)

> 
> That was due to an unfortunate misinterpretation of the actual effect of 
> the GPL, which had the even more unfortunate side effect that some 
> people have blown it way out of proportion, and waged a campaign against 
> distributors of GPLd VMs, their users and packagers for over two years. 
> It was not very pleasant while it lasted.
> 
> I would very much like to avoid that Harmony's downstream users have to 
> go through the same time wasting ordeal over and over again, that 
> various people outside of SbaleVM went through a few times. Having 
> submarine copyright holders on VMs using Harmony's VM modules or class 
> libraries would be a pretty bad thing.
> 

Huh? People don't *assign* copyright to the ASF, they grant a license to 
their work.

So *all* software that you get from the ASF certainly has "submarine 
copyright holders" in the sense that it is possible that one or more 
people do own the copyright for any given piece of code.

But you don't care, because it's licensed to you under the terms of the 
Apache License.


> The requested changes sound to me like asking for shared copyright in 
> all VMs using Harmony's modules, and I just want to know if that is the 
> case, or not. Preferrably from the people asking for those changes. :)

We don't care.  There is shared copyright on all of this.  Right?


gier