Hi, On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 14:26 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > On Jul 29, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >>> Why we > >>> are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is > >>> just to > >>> get on with business for now. > >> > >> I thought we were trying to figure out how we can work the *mailing > >> list* so that your concerns were met. > > > > No, I agree with others that having different ways to handle > > contributions depending on how they were submitted is confusing. > > Then what do you propose?
Be a little subversive and just make MIT/X the policy for all new work submitted to harmony since that seems the only thing we can agree on. Seeing some of the debates I think the dual licensing GPL/ASL ideas won't really fly. MIT/X gets us going for now. And I don't believe any harmony contributor has a problem with it. > Having our codebase in SVN under anything > but the Apache License is going to be a non-starter. Yeah, it would be a shame if we had to move the SVN repository to somewhere else. Maybe we should just hope we keep harmony bug free till the ASF and FSF board come to an agreement how to handle the incompatibility. It looks like it won't be that hard since everybody now at least sees what the subtle issues with the patent termination clause are and they seem to be actually talking. Creative legal thinking seems to be popular with geeks so lets hope for the best. Cheers, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
