Anthony,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:44:57PM -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 00:36 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Am sure you are aware that Apache does not get contributors to assign
copyrights to Apache when they contribute code.
So why not simply have the Harmony
Anthony Green wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 01:05 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Anthony,
People who are willing to go the GPL route for their code have lots of
avenues as u know...
(It's not the GPL, it's the GNU Classpath license!)
...and there are other bone fide open source projects
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:50 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
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
Hi Tim,
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 08:53 +, Tim Ellison wrote:
...and there are other bone fide open source projects that are important
to Harmony under any number of licenses. Obvious examples being in the
VM-space such as Kaffe (GPL) and Jikes (IBM public license). I believe
we should play
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:50:28PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
In a way all these existing projects (classpath, kaffe, gcj, cacao,
jamvm, ikvm, sablevm, etc) are just forks of each other (or mergers of
other projects). And they do even compete! But when you have enough
dedicated enthusiastic
Anthony Green wrote:
IANAL, but my understanding is that there are two ways to make all the
problems go away:
a) Modify the Apache license to remove the additional restrictions, or
b) Modify the GPL to remove the additional restrictions requirement.
(c) FSF, to whom all Classpath hackers have
Hi there!
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
*snip*
1) the two projects need a middle ground, a philosophy-neutral
licensed interface code that can be used by both and implemented by
all the pieces of the puzzle. I would suggest something like
http://www.openvm.org/ and an MIT license. Both
I have been thinking about this and talking to people. I tell you, it all makes
my head hurt.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:26:35PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 05:38 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
And add: We do ask that all contributions are also available under
terms that allow
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
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
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
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
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:50 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
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!
Anthony,
Am sure you are aware that Apache does not get contributors to assign
copyrights to Apache when they contribute code.
-- dims
On 11/18/05, Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:50 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
As a special exception, for Classpath we have
that's the prerogative of the contributor...
-- dims
On 11/18/05, Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 00:36 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Anthony,
Am sure you are aware that Apache does not get contributors to assign
copyrights to Apache when they contribute
Anthony,
People who are willing to go the GPL route for their code have lots of
avenues as u know...
-- dims
On 11/18/05, Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 00:48 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
that's the prerogative of the contributor...
No, I'm asking that the
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:26:35PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 05:38 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
I keep getting lost in the licensing discussions. I *think* the below
accurately
represents where we are right now.
Thanks for writing this down. I'll try to clarify some
Hi Leo,
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 02:35 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
There is one nitpick with the whole setup though. It really reads as if
harmony is just an ordinary Apache project.
You really should stop whistling that theme. There is nothing ordinary
about Apache projects and there is no
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Its kind-of hard to make sense of the whole
legal+java+licensing+patents+open source
picture. I think in the end it comes down to the US legal system just
not making a
lot of sense.
[snip]
Both the ASF and the FSF are slowly but surely
Leo Simons wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:34:17AM -0800, Neil Macneale wrote:
Are the licenses in question so restrictive that that they would prevent
someone from writing a script which would download all the required
packages and assemble them correctly on the installer's computer? For
Mark Wielaard wrote:
It seems FOSDEM always brings us closer
together.
Shouldn't that read beer, not FOSDEM?
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:54:42PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
Mark Wielaard wrote:
It seems FOSDEM always brings us closer
together.
Shouldn't that read beer, not FOSDEM?
+1.
One nice thing about FOSDEM is that it offers belgian beer in a friendly,
belgian environment.
cheers,
On Nov 14, 2005, at 1:44 AM, Neil Macneale wrote:
Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi Leo,
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 05:38 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
I keep getting lost in the licensing discussions. I *think* the
below accurately
represents where we are right now.
Thanks for writing this down. I'll try
On Nov 14, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Maybe it just needs more time and trust.
Yes. Patience. We're just getting started.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
involvement at all. I personally feel that way at times
reading some of the discussions. Lets try to be a little more inclusive
and get the support of those hundreds of people working already on the
same goal, but who don't currently feel part of harmony.
= The Unofficial Harmony, Licensing
I keep getting lost in the licensing discussions. I *think* the below accurately
represents where we are right now.
= The Unofficial Harmony, Licensing, the Universe and everything FAQ =
version 0.0.0.1-SNAPSHOT
Q: What do you mean, unofficial
25 matches
Mail list logo
