harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew John Hughes <gnu_and...@member.fsf.org>
Subject Re: Google Summer of Code 2009
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:49:21 GMT
2009/2/26 Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>:
>
> In message <17c6771e0902260513g17883e6dsc710a8e4aee30387@mail.gmail.com>,
> Andrew John Hughes writes:
>>
>> 2009/2/24 Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org>:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Andrew John Hughes
>> > <gnu_andrew@member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2009/2/23 Nathan Beyer <nbeyer@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >>> How about a javadoc tool baseline implementation?
>> >>
>> >> There are already at least three such tools under FOSS licenses. Why
>> >> would we need another?
>> >
>> > Are any under an ALv2 compatible license that we can package?
>>
>> I believe gjdoc and Sun's javadoc are under the GPL.  If Apache
>> Harmony can't be used to run Java programs licensed under the GPL, you
>> may as well give up now.
>
> I think you missed the point of Nathan's question.  The key terms
> were 'ALv2 compatible' and 'package'.  Running programs and
> packaging/distributing them are entirely separate issues.
>

No, I didn't.  The GPLv3 is compatible with the ALv2 and, while gjdoc,
is currently under GPLv2, it
has the option of using a later version.  If the Apache project wished
to contribute to it, I don't see there
being any problem upgrading to GPLv3.

> Nathan was trying to determine if any of the implementations you mention
> might help in meeting the goals of this project.  As stated on the
> project homepage, a goal of the Apache Harmony Project is to create:
>
>  A compatible, independent implementation of the Java SE 5 JDK under
>  the Apache License v2
>
> If there was a suitable javadoc under a compatible license[0] that we
> could include in an ALv2 distribution then we certainly would consider
> it over re-inventing the wheel.  But I don't believe there is one?
>

Given your list is more restrictive than is actually required, and
completely rules out all versions of the GPL for no apparent reason,
then I guess the only thing that would be compatible under your
requirements is little more than the ALv2 and very similar licenses...

Of course, if you do come up with a useful tool, I'm sure we can
likewise look at including it.  As Classpath already depends on ecj, I
don't see an ALed javadoc tool being an issue.

> When the license is compatible, we are just as happy to reuse existing
> components from other projects - such as Xerces, Xalan, BCEL, and
> concurrent.  Other Java projects with different goals may be pragmatic
> about what they decide is compatible with their choice of license.
>

I don't know the history of the first three, but the JSR166 code was
public domain and so didn't have a license.

> Getting back to the topic of GSoC 2009, javadoc would not be top of my
> priority list for tools to implement for Harmony.  A jdb implementation
> would probably be my most-wanted tool (probably built on the eclipse
> jdi).  The reasons for this is that I think that jdb is a tool where
> there is quite a lot of room of improvement/adding-value (such as adding
> JSR-45 support).  I expect this would be more satisfying for a student
> than implementing javadoc.

I agree with that reasoning.  You will need a javadoc for a complete
1.5 JDK though.

>
> Regards,
>  Mark.
>
> [0] There is some discussion of what is classed as compatible at:
>    http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8

Mime
View raw message