Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 16:56 +0000, Tim Ellison wrote: ><snip> >>I agree that getting a resolution to the community/licensing differences >>would be fantastic. I don't see that happening quickly, and I don't >>want to see the success or failure of a development project gated upon >>it. IMHO resolving license issues is a board-level objective, not a >>J2SE-project objective. We can hack code and live in hope :-) > > > I believe people are really reluctant to hack on the code while there is > a legal limbo whether it can be included into the other code bases out > there
I hope that I've misunderstood your comments Mark, because it would of course be wrong for people to suspend development on FSF and ASF java implementations -- jchevm, bootJVM, classpath, kaffe, etc. while awaiting a resolution of the 'legal limbo'. > and whether it is meant as a project to enhance all the existing > projects or just another project on the side. So I see resolving this > issues as a high priority. I wasn't involved in writing the Harmony project proposal, but it seems to be quite clearly targeting a java implementation and not a generic license compatibility project. I suggest that a java-only resolution would be sub-optimal anyway. However, I have no influence in the FSF or ASF :-) so I'll refrain from further debate, like others on the list who are clearly smarter than me! Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
