＞My name is Bob. I work on Apache Harmony fulltime. I am employed by a
company ＞that has a really big licensing firewall. I am not allowed to look
at anything ＞in the GPL,CDDL,NPL1.0 eg copyleft licensing corner. Our
lawyer has to approve ＞my open source mailing list subscriptions. He
questions
Seems good to me.
One question as I am curious: isn't it enough just to state by the terms
and conditions of Contributions as defined by the Apache License, Version
2.0.?
Cheers,
RB
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Sounds a bit like a time-bomb to me...
RB
-Original Message-
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 10:05 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Weldon Washburn
Subject: Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
+1 to Robin. proceed as though the
Nor do I disagree...
I /love/ modularity too.
RB
Qui ne dit mot consent
(who tells nothing agrees)
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 7:13 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [arch] VM/Classlibrary
Are you employed as a programmer, systems analyst, or other
IT professional? If so, you may be an commiter
only if your employer either:
a) signs a Corporate Contribution License Agreement with Apache
and lists you as a designated employee or
b) submits a
for Committers
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 10:34 +0900, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
It is quite similar in French law (soft copyright law being a derivative
of
usual author copyright law: author's right belongs to the author, period;
usage right can be granted/sold/etc. but NOT the author's property).
Hi
$B!d(BIt could even be that a Harmony VM would be
$B!d(Bincorporated with Sun's classlibraries to create a product by some
$B!d(Bcomercial vendor that could lawfully do that. In this view, it would be
$B!d(Bimportant to have a VM-library interface that could accomplish that.
(B
(BIf
$B!d(B It brings to mind some of the portability/modularity issues we've been
$B!d(B wrestling with (at great length) with MMTk and the interdependence
$B!d(B between the memory manager and the VM. Our solution is not earth
$B!d(B shattering, but it evolved out of a very long struggle
It is quite similar in French law (soft copyright law being a derivative of
usual author copyright law: author's right belongs to the author, period;
usage right can be granted/sold/etc. but NOT the author's property). Not
sure about Japanese law (I am living in Japan and France :-)).
I guess we
(BI guess that reading some good research papers and studying "free" impls can
(Bdo the same...$B!!(BThe risk to copy or rather give an impression of copy is
(Breal$B!!(BIMHO.
(B
(BRB
(B
(B-Original Message-
(BFrom: Enrico Migliore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(BSent: Wednesday,
- something with http://www.snapplatform.org/ (using JikesRVM,
Indeed we need to make transition as effortless as possible.
RB
-Original Message-
From: PJ Cabrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:15 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$B!d(BSure. I only see inter-module inlining as an issue when the modules
$B!d(Bare going to have very fine grain interactions. I can't think of any
$B!d(Bexamples, so this is not a big concern for me at this stage either.
(B
(BMay be we can consider:
(B
(B- graphics (low-level
Interesting. I remember hearing that free list allocators are useful
for embedded applications where RAM is constrained. In the embedded
market, I remember hearing an interpreter is preferred because the
footprint bloat of adding a JIT is unacceptable. Also for many
embedded situtions, the
$B!d(BSumming up, I support the idea of a java/bytecode to C compiler that can
$B!d(Bbe bundled with gcc. As stated we would gain portability and we can use
$B!d(Ball facilities provided by gcc.
(B
(BTo me it sounds a bit like gcj... In order to use a low level bytecode as an
(BSubject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
(B
(B
(BOn May 22, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
(B
(B
(B
(B $B!d!!(BNo. Why would we do this?
(B People tend to be lazy. If they have a bundle with one VM, then
(B they will
(B use that VM, for m
I think there are Swing wrappers for SWT, which can wrap win$ / GTK /
MacOS-X-Carbon.
(No guaranty so far as code completeness is concerned, so please trust it
and die...)
RB
-Original Message-
From: Bryce Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:34 AM
To:
al Message-
(BFrom: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(BSent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:49 AM
(BTo: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
(BSubject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
(B
(B
(BOn May 23, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
(B
(B
(BBy this I mean sort of "stripped down to its maximum demo Eclipse" (usable
(Bfor small projects, but without all those fancy plugins). This is not really
(Bredistributing but rather "pamphleting"...
(B
(BRB
(B
(B-Original Message-----
(BFrom: Renaud BECHADE [mai
L PROTECTED]
(BSent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:33 AM
(BTo: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
(BSubject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
(B
(B
(BOn May 23, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
(B
(B $B!d(BI don't understand this argument. If our J2SE imple
Hi,
One possibility I see to conciliate both is to have one of the VMs to be
considered as a bootstrap VM (so that the one that proves the fastest to
start-up is probably the obvious choice IMHO) and the other acting like a
high perf plug-in for instance. I guess there will be plenty of work
n Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(BSent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:38 PM
(BTo: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
(BSubject: Re: [arch] VM Candidate : JikesRVM http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/
(B
(B
(BOn May 19, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Renaud BECHADE wrote:
(B
(B
(B
(B Another point that is unrel
$B!d(BI think this discussion soon gets into a java language/system debate,
$B!d(Bbecause one could argue why we need to do this tight bundling between
$B!d(Bthe bunch of classes in rt.jar and the vm version. For instance: Why do
$B!d(BI have to wait for JVM 6 to fix that bug in Swing,
deployment, such as for instance A calls B on machine x but in fact B is
(Bworking on machine y (and except from the AOP system, x has a jar of A+B, or
(Ban empty shell of B, where a calls B the "usual way")
(B
(B[Renaud BECHADE] RB
(B
$B!d(BFrom the llvm web site: "LLVM does not currently support garbage
$B!d(Bcollection of multi-threaded programs or GC-safe points other than
$B!d(Bfunction calls, but these will be added in the future as there is
$B!d(Binterest." I would imagine that's quite a lot of work.
(B
(BI like it.
(B
$B!d(B* Work together with the GCJ people to build a really fast AOT-compiler
$B!d(Bthat also works with LLVM based Execution Engine
(B
(BI which case we theoretically have a JIT at supposedly low cost...
(B(translating bytecode to bytecode /without having to optimize it/
25 matches
Mail list logo
