harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [buildtest2] Shall we Integrate mauve to BTI 2.0
Date Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:37:06 GMT
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the link [1] you've send. Do I understand
> correctly the paragraph "YOU MAY include code within the Apache
> product necessary to achieve compatibility with a prohibited work
> [...]" applies to this case?

Well the whole document applies to our project, but in particular we
should be mindful of the scenarios that describe how we can interact
with Mauve code.

http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-scenarios

Regards,
Tim

> 
> [1] http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
> 
> On 7/25/07, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
>> > Hello Sean,
>> >
>> > Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. :-)
>>
>> Me neither, and when we are done discussing we might want to do a
>> gut-check with the legal discuss mailing list to ensure they approve our
>> proposed actions...that said...
>>
>> > Mauve has a pure GPL license [1]. Executing mauve tests is
>> > establishing a dynamic link between Harmony VM an these tests. For me
>> > this means that the linking infrastructure is tainted with GPL and
>> > cannot be a part of BTI. In other words, if you commit such
>> > infrastructure into Apache repository, the link may help FSF to claim
>> > that Harmony VM links to GPL-ed code and should be re-licensed under
>> > GPL.
>> >
>> > All, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
>>
>> There is no intent to redistribute the tests from Harmony, just enable
>> them for the end user.  There is an analogy with the performance
>> infrastructure we just voted on which has adapters to SPEC benchmarks
>> that are not part of Harmony.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message