On Wednesday 23 August 2006 13:22, Leo Simons wrote:
Licensing
-
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 07:38:36PM -0700, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
[what license should Sun use to open source java]
I'll bite: the MIT license.
+1, for all the reasons Stefano described. Along with the neccessary,
Classpath users as a result.
But perhaps we should get on with Bringing License arguments to Sun, rather
than just having License arguments?
Chris
--
Chris Gray/k/ Embedded Java Solutions BE0503765045
Embedded Mobile Java, OSGihttp://www.k-embedded-java.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED
, and not infrequently they become Classpath users as a result.
But perhaps we should get on with Bringing License arguments to Sun, rather
than just having License arguments?
I never think there's anything wrong with discussion :)
(especially since the thread is marked and ignorable...)
geir
Chris
(I looked at http://community.java.net/jdk/opensource/ for a
feedback button or something but can't find it. Thanks for listening
anyway!)
Licensing
-
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 07:38:36PM -0700, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
[what license should Sun use to open source java]
I'll bite: the MIT
Leo Simons wrote:
The network is the computer, and the community is the real network.
I want a t-shirt with that on! :-)
--
Stefano.
-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
CDDL is an example of clever lawyer work to modernize best licensing
practices, but those are best practices in protection not in social
empowerment!
I don't understand that. Do you see the CDDL as somehow
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I understand you are concerned about the SCO-like patent attacks of
somebody coming in and telling you that you can't run your own code
because they own the rights to the concept... but if that is the case
against the RI, we have a way bigger problem and that's nothing
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
CDDL is an example of clever lawyer work to modernize best licensing
practices, but those are best practices in protection not in social
empowerment!
I don't understand that. Do you see the
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I understand you are concerned about the SCO-like patent attacks of
somebody coming in and telling you that you can't run your own code
because they own the rights to the concept... but if that is the case
against the RI, we have a way bigger
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Maybe - or just declaring a patent peace or patent commons. I think
that there's nothing wrong with proprietary software, so if they want
to keep competing using it, great.
I don't see a point in proprietary JVMs, and class libraries for major
operating systems,
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Maybe - or just declaring a patent peace or patent commons. I think
that there's nothing wrong with proprietary software, so if they want
to keep competing using it, great.
I don't see a point in proprietary JVMs, and class libraries for major
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Maybe - or just declaring a patent peace or patent commons. I think
that there's nothing wrong with proprietary software, so if they want
to keep competing using it, great.
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 23:37 Dalibor Topic wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Maybe - or just declaring a patent peace or patent commons. I think
that there's nothing wrong with proprietary software, so if they want
to keep competing using it, great.
I don't see a point in proprietary
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
CDDL is an example of clever lawyer work to modernize best licensing
practices, but those are best practices in protection not in social
empowerment!
I don't understand that. Do you see the CDDL as somehow restricting
communities?
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 8/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only problem I see with the MIT license is the lack of modern patent
language. I'd like to see a license with that in place.
there is no reason why patent and copyrights need to be covered
together
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:12:30AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
That said, it's hard to deny that the ASF has never experienced, in 10
years of operation, a single fork, despite the complete lack of
reciprocity provisions in its licensing strategy, showing
Chris Gray wrote:
TCKs are special
in that a particular version of the code is normative, so modified versions
need to be clearly marked as such (Apache licence?).
If One TCK is so important, let me propose a semi-heretical idea: don't
open it. Certainly the 400 JVM developers should be
Wes Felter wrote:
Chris Gray wrote:
TCKs are special in that a particular version of the code is
normative, so modified versions need to be clearly marked as such
(Apache licence?).
If One TCK is so important, let me propose a semi-heretical idea: don't
open it. Certainly the 400 JVM
+1 to Stefano Mazzocchi: a Reference Implementation should have an MIT- or
BSD-style licence. It worked for TCP/IP, it worked for X11, or JPEG and for
countless other things. It's good for interoperability, becuase it encourages
people to use the RI as a base and only tinker with those things
On Aug 20, 2006, at 03:38, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
So, if we assume for a second that Sun can use the license as a carrot
rather than a stick, my suggestion would be to use the simplest and
more
compatible license possible.
I'll bite: the MIT license.
Thanks, Stefano, I appreciate the
On Aug 20, 2006, at 09:54, Chris Gray wrote:
+1 to Stefano Mazzocchi:
Noted, thanks. (and edited so I am making fair use of your
copyrighted material - I don't want to get sued...)
The specs should be
licensed in a way that is compatible with the requirements of
standards
bodies
On Sunday 20 August 2006 12:27, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Aug 20, 2006, at 09:54, Chris Gray wrote:
+1 to Stefano Mazzocchi:
Noted, thanks. (and edited so I am making fair use of your
copyrighted material - I don't want to get sued...)
My cat can be vicious. :-)
The specs should be
The only problem I see with the MIT license is the lack of modern patent
language. I'd like to see a license with that in place. I know the
GPL is incompatible with such things, but the GPL-ers recognize it as a
problem and are fixing it in GPLv3.
By the time Sun gets everything done in open
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Sun is not using a license to stop people to add changes to the JVM that
they are afraid that they won't get donated back. Sun is looking for
ways to help spread Java, but without affective compatibility negatively.
That's the important thing to get across to Sun -
Simon Phipps wrote:
On Aug 20, 2006, at 03:38, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
So, if we assume for a second that Sun can use the license as a carrot
rather than a stick, my suggestion would be to use the simplest and more
compatible license possible.
I'll bite: the MIT license.
Thanks,
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
CDDL is an example of clever lawyer work to modernize best licensing
practices, but those are best practices in protection not in social
empowerment!
I don't understand that. Do you see the CDDL as somehow restricting
communities?
No, I see CDDL something that
On 8/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only problem I see with the MIT license is the lack of modern patent
language. I'd like to see a license with that in place.
there is no reason why patent and copyrights need to be covered
together by a single license. the MIT
At
http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=17634tstart=0
Sun's Chief Open Source Officer Simon Phipps alias webmink
http://forums.java.net/jive/profile.jspa?userID=70
wrotes, that he have still not decided, which OpenSource license will be
used for Suns Java.
He wrote:
To be clear,
On Aug 19, 2006, at 19:57, theUser BL wrote:
At
http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=17634tstart=0
Sun's Chief Open Source Officer Simon Phipps alias webmink
http://forums.java.net/jive/profile.jspa?userID=70
wrotes, that he have still not decided, which OpenSource license
will
Simon Phipps wrote:
On Aug 19, 2006, at 19:57, theUser BL wrote:
Actually is still the time, where you can influence, which license
Suns Java will have.
Yes indeed. I am all ears.
As somebody that has been pushing for Sun to open source pieces of the
Java platform from that now famous
30 matches
Mail list logo
