Noel J. Bergman dijo: >> If you read the open letters there is clear they suggest an full GPL >> license, because if not maybe it can end (intentionally) in a fork. > > There is nothing in the GPL that talks about a fork. The argument for Sun > to license their JVM under the GPL is that then Sun would be the only one > who could then license that code under a proprietary license for those who > wanted a non-GPL JVM.
I was not talking that the (L)GPL license by it self prevent the forking. I tought about this: <snip> Sun's biggest fear regarding Java has been Microsoft. Microsoft has shown in the past that it wants nothing better than to "pollute" Java and fragment the market, but Microsoft also regards the GPL as a poison pill. A GPL-ed Java would be Microsoft's biggest nightmare. Any extensions that Microsoft makes will have to be made available with source code and under the GPL, in turn. That makes it far easier to backport Microsoft's extensions to the main trunk, if required, neutralising their power to fork the codebase. </snip> Did you see why I wrote it can prevent a fork? ;-) The full article is here: http://linuxtoday.com/developer/2004022402326OPCYDV > Sun very clearly does not want a fork. I agree (see the above snip again). The word "intentional" was not addresed to Sun at all. Remember there are other players and the game is not only IBM vs. Sun. It is multiplayer game: ASF, XAML, .NET, Mono, Linux Desktop, GNOME, etc. What if Java is defeated by .NET and all the hundreds of developed hours by ASF committer is just throw away? After .NET succes the next move is XAML. This means the end of the Internet as we know it. In this scenario, even the Apache HTTPD server can be defeated. We cannot allow this happen. I think we can be proactive. For the good of the ASF. Fortunately, I cannot put in my head many hats as many of you can do. So in this way I have not mixed ideas or feels about this. I just have one hat and this is my ASF committer hat. I see a posible thread that will come as a consecuence of being passive in this issue. We are a player in the game. This issue is in my head for a month (since on February, 16 I read the first letter of Eric Raymond): http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2004021600226OPSWDV > There was some report that Sun would be willing to turn over > stewardship of the JCP to a neutral third party (KeyLabs has been > mentioned), but only with mandatory TCK testing to ensure > that all implementations were compliant. The proposed Apache JSR and TCK > licenses also mandate compliance. Not sure if this is enough. This move look to me as just "throwing a bone" to shut up people that is talking about a good move than Sun can do right now. To me the game is far more than "sharing" some revenue channels (or as you want to see them). Now is the momentum to make a choice. We cannot go back in time and solve problems. I don't want to see in the future the ASF having the same end as Novell, Borland or Netscape. This companies in the best case are just a shadow of what they were before). The cards are on the table and we need to decide right now what to do. Waiting and thinking can be too late. It is a very historic moment in the Java life and I think Java is very important to us. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
