Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 18318 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2006 16:28:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2006 16:28:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 59230 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2006 16:28:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 59197 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2006 16:28:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 59176 invoked by uid 99); 9 Nov 2006 16:28:32 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:28:32 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of stuart.a.ballard@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.175] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:28:19 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id y2so326518uge for ; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:27:58 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EKApQvV2k9Ar0KyHmKAtDJY+iLx/J8JrVdiC5YZLoxE5lkcOD7aZb64Fcri/i6EEp2/Jk/jlm8GnWLKKVbDOh7741MGiO2lBIIvMjfE3luirxnYxGZ2TTbAJjuv2W2j8BTp7EIkWwlQxsjjKf8GFOJ8ea40g6234As9QRFssXl4= Received: by 10.67.22.7 with SMTP id z7mr1637532ugi.1163089678188; Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.87.8 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:27:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:27:57 -0500 From: "Stuart Ballard" To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4550BC17.4060504@apache.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > David Gilbert wrote: > > A boon? Not at all, Classpath will be (mostly) redundant and will fade > > away, replaced by Sun's runtime. > > I'm not so convinced of that. GNU Classpath is under GPL + Exception, > so arguably it's not viral to things that link with it. I think it's highly unlikely Sun will release their VM without terms that enable proprietary code to be built on top of it. That'd be particularly counterproductive of them. My speculation would be that they'll release it under two licenses, one similar to the terms they have now, and the GPL as the other. Code released under those terms is clearly not viral. > Also, I think the copyright assignment requirement will be a big deal. If OpenOffice is anything to go by, Sun will require a copyright assignment to them; Classpath requires a copyright assignment to the FSF. Yes, that's a little bit different because a lot of developers will trust the FSF a lot more than they do Sun... I actually think it'd be really smart of Sun to not require a copyright assignment at all, but rather require contributing developers to license their code under *both* sets of terms just as Sun itself does. That would allow Sun to continue to use the dual licensing scheme without the stigma of the copyright assignment requirement. And it's very similar (in spirit, if not in details) to the model that Mozilla has used for years - originally to allow Netscape to make proprietary releases based on the contributed code. As far as the suggestion elsewhere in the thread (that I lost, digest mode subscription is painful ;) ) that the GNU people would feel it necessary to fork Sun's Java entirely to maintain their sense of freedom, I don't think this is so. The FSF have fairly strong philosophical disagreements with Linus but have never forked the kernel. They have philosophical disagreements with the ASF sometimes but there isn't a GNU fork of the Apache webserver. I think a GPL'd Java would be considered acceptable - because the license allows the *option* of a fork if Sun proves to be a sufficiently poor steward. But I've never heard of a project being "preemptively" forked on the offchance the maintainer will make unacceptable decisions in the future. At least I've never heard of such a fork having even the slightest success. A lot depends, of course, on how Sun actually engages the community - I'd say that's even more important than the license, as long as the license isn't *completely* un-work-withable. > Understood. For me, an additional requirement is an open and level > community, where all participants are working together under exactly the > same terms. (Which is where GNU Classpath will be different than what I > understand the Sun model will be) I don't consider it a foregone conclusion either way as to whether Classpath will or won't continue with any enthusiasm if Sun's implementation is released under an acceptable license and with an acceptable process for getting contributions back in. There's a lot of momentum behind Classpath right now but it might be hard to justify all the effort to get from (essentially) complete 1.4 and parts of 1.5, to parity with Sun's 6. Either way we live in interesting times :) And either way Sun's release under *any* open source license is a very good thing. Stuart. -- http://sab39.dev.netreach.com/