On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 05:28:26PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > On Nov 17, 2005, at 4:41 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > >Leo Simons wrote: > >>Note this would kind-of be a > >>one-way licensing bridge, eg Classpath would still not be able to > >>incorporate code > >>developed at harmony into their codebase (much like classpath > >>currently can't take > >>code licensed only under the GPL since the copyright holders need > >>to agree to that > >>exception first). Of course, there is never something which would > >>prevent > >>individuals who contribute stuff to harmony to contribute that > >>same stuff to > >>classpath and it is explicitly fine for the classpath community to > >>ask for stuff > >>like that. > > > >And it is to be noted that the above is *NOT* because the ASF does > >not want this from happening. We would love to see GPL link and > >ship apache licensed code in their system, but the GPL2, as it > >currently stand, doesn't not allow that. > > > >Truth is, nothing prevents Classpath from add another little thing > >to the exception that says "and we know that code such and such is > >covered by the apache license". > > That's interesting. I never thought of this. Given that GNU > Classpath is able to modify the GPL with the exception, how about > adding something that removes the "can't work with Apache License" > problem?
"As a special exception, for Classpath we have decided to make all the problems described at http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html go away." And then in proper lawyer terms. Heh. Very interesting, very pragmatic! Mark, do you think there's any chance of making this happen? Now, obviously, the ASF isn't going to say that such an exception thing is a good idea (since there's doubt on the ASF side about exceptions to the GPL in general, IIUC), but the ASF doesn't really need to say anything about that if the FSF decides to make such a change -- its their license and their code after all. whoohooh, looks like a way to seperate concerns! Leo
