On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:24:10PM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Anthony Green wrote: > > >But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this? AFAICT, > >many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free > >class library project. > > uh? nobody ever mentioned that harmony was about "a single free class > library project".
Yeah. I'd expect Harmony to prefer to use ASF's JAXP code over GNU JAXP, for example, Common-Regexp/ORO over GNU regex, and so on. There are always going to be areas where it may make sense for Apache Harmony to chose different components for their class library over GNU Classpath's choice, and that's the idea, basically: being able to pick and chose whatever suits oneself, while heading towards a full 1.5 implementation. > In such an ecosystem, having Classpath licensed under LGPL would make it > much easier for Harmony to start merging pieces. Yup. I think the most important part for Harmony would be to be able to use what's out there, and that requires policy decisions on Apache Harmony's/ASF's side and/or licensing decisions on FSF's side. All of which take time, require attention to detail, mutual understanding of the letter and spirit of licenses, then feeding that to the ASF's lawyers, you name it. I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking exception as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made using gcc that are distributed from Apache.org anyway, and would allow us to ship gcc-compiled binaries of Harmony. Someone tell the httpd guys to raise it at legal-discuss. > If not, we'll have to create yet another licensing bridge and it will > take some more time, that's all. +1. cheers, dalibor topic
