Leo Simons wrote:
, that that can
lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a say in
it.
No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at a minimum
have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and then apache
would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache license, and
what that means is rather clear.
It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it
out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license of a
VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
I'm asking since going to court over disagreement of Kaffe's license's effects
has been explained to me by some SableVM developers as a possible consequence
of using SableVM's code in the past
I have no idea what "Kaffe's license's effects" means.
Some SableVM developers have asserted in the past that running some
applications on top of a GPLd VM constitutes a crime, which could be
avoided by using SableVM, rather than other VMs.
That was due to an unfortunate misinterpretation of the actual effect of
the GPL, which had the even more unfortunate side effect that some
people have blown it way out of proportion, and waged a campaign against
distributors of GPLd VMs, their users and packagers for over two years.
It was not very pleasant while it lasted.
I would very much like to avoid that Harmony's downstream users have to
go through the same time wasting ordeal over and over again, that
various people outside of SbaleVM went through a few times. Having
submarine copyright holders on VMs using Harmony's VM modules or class
libraries would be a pretty bad thing.
The requested changes sound to me like asking for shared copyright in
all VMs using Harmony's modules, and I just want to know if that is the
case, or not. Preferrably from the people asking for those changes. :)
Honestly, the IP trail for
kaffe is at best incomprehensible to most mortals, so I can somehow imagine lots
of room for disagreement :-).
Given that it's the oldest active free software VM, with an active,
collaborative, transparent development community going back to 1996,
I don't think there are any questions regarding Kaffe's development
history.
It's all been done out there in the open, afaict.
The apache license is a rather nice license. If you trust it to be valid, and
that
all the people applying it apply it properly, and you yourself apply it
properly,
then there is not so much room for different interpretation or confusion as
there
is for (for example) GPLv2, and hence not so much chance of getting sued.
Most license stewards try leave very little room for confusion in their
licenses, be it FSF, ASF, or anyone else. There is as little room for
confusion in the GPL as is in the ASL2. Both work pretty much the same
way, they only differ in the scope of how much of an author's rights
they chose to pass on, under which specific conditions, and some small
details, like using a lawyer-friendly vs. rest-of-us-friendly terminology.
Other than that, it's all the same thing: the let you use works, modify,
lern from, pass them on freely, and have fun, based on copyright law.
At least from where I stand. :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
