harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robin Garner" <robin.gar...@anu.edu.au>
Subject Re: [drlvm][mmtk] location of mmtk.jar that's needed by JIT helper inlining -- did this get resolved?
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:13:47 GMT
>
>
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
>> On 11/28/06, Peter Donald <peter@realityforge.org> wrote:
>>> On 11/28/06, Nathan Beyer <nbeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > Why public domain?  That can actually be problematic from a strict
>>> > > licensing POV for reasons I don't remember or can't really explain
>>> clearly.
>>> >
>>> > This is off topic, but that seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn't public
>>> > domain mean no worries?
>>>
>>> With public domain software (which effectively means software that you
>>> disclaim copyright on) can lead you open to litigation. Partially as a
>>> result of your inability to disclaim warranty or fitness for intended
>>> use. So your software goes *boom* then you may be responsible for
>>> damages due to some implied warranty or even expressed warranty (if
>>> you said the software was good go use it!).
>>
>> Interesting. Thanks for turning on that light bulb.
>>
>> All of the concurrency code we're using is public domain, as defined
>> by this URL, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain. There's
>> no mention of warranty in the code or the site we get it from. Is this
>> bad for the authors? Is this bad for Harmony?
>
> It's not ideal, but we have little choice.
>
> geir
>
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>>>
>>> Different countries have all sorts of twisted laws regarding its use.
>>> While I don't pretend to understand them I have been told by people
>>> who do know stuff that generally it is a very bad idea to try and
>>> public domain software - even if you know the appropriate steps
>>> required to disclaim copyright.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter Donald
>>>

Given that all we would be re-licensing is an interface, the probability
of lawsuits would seem to me to be negligibly small, but I'll remember
people's comments when we have the licensing debate.  The aim is to have
it under a license where nobody who wants to use/implement it is prevented
from doing so by the license.

cheers


Mime
View raw message