harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Tanzer <stru...@guglhupf.net>
Subject Re: Releationship to GNU Classpath?
Date Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:52:14 GMT
Hi!

Cool, one of the easy questions again ;)

Ok, first of all, Mark Wielaard has written an interesting article on 
LWN about the status of GNU Classpath which also discusses the 
relationship to HY from his point of view:

http://lwn.net/Articles/184967/

Of course Dalibor's article is great too, but this one is much newer
and really interesting to read.

I talked to some Classpath people at FOSDEM 06 (http://fosdem.org) about 
this because I am too interested in not burning all the bridges. While some
of them are quite disappointed about how things are now others don't seem 
to have a problem with us or how we handle this situation. I'm not sure if
i should write their names here, maybe the people I'm talking about could
stand up (you know who you are ;) ).

More comments inline...

On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 14:03 +0000, theUser BL wrote:
[Snip]
> And here are two blog-entries:
> http://metastatic.org/text/Concern/2006/05/30/harmony/
> http://kennke.org/cgi-bin/blosxom/2006/05/30#harmony-jfc

Well, that's what I think about the comments from Roman and Casey
(I won't repeat it here):

http://davidtanzer.net/?q=node/42

[Snip]
> Then there existing developer, who writes code for Harmony and others who 
> writes code for GNU Classpath. Thats duplicated work. And if both groups 
> would working on _one_ class-implementation together, they could be faster 
> then, if both groups would reinvent the wheel itself.

Well, competing implementations is not a completely negative thing. 
Diversity is a chance and not a problem, especially in free software
projects. Look for example at Gnome and KDE which now exist next to
each other for years, and both are still alive.

> Is the reason the different licenses?

There was lots of discussion about these things on harmony-dev during
the time when I still wrote the mailing list summaries, they are online
here:

http://davidtanzer.net/?q=taxonomy/term/5

But basically: Yes, one of the reasons is the different license.

[Snip]
> Or could it be possible, that GNU Classpath developer could also publish its 
> code under the ASL2 ?
> Or that Harmony developer could also publish its code under the GNU 
> Classpath-license?

Yes and yes, But: There are some issues with dual licensing (Dalibor
mentioned one in his comment on OSNews). For example, here at the ASF
the copyright holders of the code are the developers themselves, not
the ASF. This means I could write some code, contribute it to HY under
AL2 and also license it under... say... BSD license. But when someone
else changes the code in HY the changes are only licensed under AL2,
so all contributors would have to dual-license all the code they write,
and I don't think that's desired.

[Snip]
> As I have said before: For me it looks, that two projects doing the same 
> thing with the same goal, but without interaction to each other.

Yes, kind of. Maybe this will change again in the future, maybe not.
But I'm pretty sure that both projects (or all the projects if you also 
count the VMs that use Gnu Classpath) can exist next to each other.

Cheers,
David Tanzer.

> 
> 
> Greatings
> theuserbl
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> 
-- 
David Tanzer, Haghofstrasse 29, 3352 St. Peter / Au, Austria
http://davidtanzer.net - http://dev.guglhupf.net - http://guglhupf.net

Mime
View raw message