Hi, As a Classpath hacker (but by no means an important one) here are my comments:
Davanum Srinivas wrote: > - We don't want to modify any classpath code. If we need changes, we > can work with classpath folks. > - We don't want to add classpath sources to our tree. this will avoid > local changes. Well, those two are of course obviously what we'd like best too. > - We want to add classpath jar snapshots to our CVS/SVN (preferable). I can't see why any of us would have a problem with that. > - We want to add classpath jar to our installer to distribute a > working JVM/JRE in a single download. Kaffe, GCJ and SableVM (among others) already include most or all of classpath, so again, this shouldn't be a problem. > - We want to enable a commercial product to be able to sublicense the > complete JVM/JRE. (Now I could point out that Kaffe was, and GCJ still is a commercial product, but I'll choose to parse that as 'closed source product' :) ) This, too, has been done[1] with Classpath. (JamaicaVM) So from the class-library POV I don't think that's a problem either. As far as I can tell, there really isn't any difference between the current Classpath license and the Apache license in *intent*. If they are incompatible, then it's due to the wording, and something which shouldn't be hard to fix. The 'wishlist' I can think of is: - Harmony choses to use Classpath :) - The first two points of above - If the Classpath license is changed, it must remain GPL-compatible. (I.e. can be mixed with GPL code and the result released under the GPL) - Harmonization of developer-demands. Classpath requires clean-room status (i.e. hasn't seen Sun's code) and FSF assignment (with rights granted back). Harmony will require some form of clean-roomness and an Apache licensing agreement. Seems to me we could benefit from having some cooperation here so a developer could 'clear' himself for both projects at the same time. - A quick resolution to these issues :) [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2002-10/msg00087.html /Sven
