Tim, Sean, Thank you for helping me to understand the important question.
On 7/26/07, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexei Fedotov wrote: > > I'm trying to understand the link [1] you've send. Do I understand > > correctly the paragraph "YOU MAY include code within the Apache > > product necessary to achieve compatibility with a prohibited work > > [...]" applies to this case? > > Well the whole document applies to our project, but in particular we > should be mindful of the scenarios that describe how we can interact > with Mauve code. > > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-scenarios > > Regards, > Tim > > > > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html > > > > On 7/25/07, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Alexei Fedotov wrote: > >> > Hello Sean, > >> > > >> > Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. :-) > >> > >> Me neither, and when we are done discussing we might want to do a > >> gut-check with the legal discuss mailing list to ensure they approve our > >> proposed actions...that said... > >> > >> > Mauve has a pure GPL license [1]. Executing mauve tests is > >> > establishing a dynamic link between Harmony VM an these tests. For me > >> > this means that the linking infrastructure is tainted with GPL and > >> > cannot be a part of BTI. In other words, if you commit such > >> > infrastructure into Apache repository, the link may help FSF to claim > >> > that Harmony VM links to GPL-ed code and should be re-licensed under > >> > GPL. > >> > > >> > All, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. > >> > >> There is no intent to redistribute the tests from Harmony, just enable > >> them for the end user. There is an analogy with the performance > >> infrastructure we just voted on which has adapters to SPEC benchmarks > >> that are not part of Harmony. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Tim > >> > > > > > -- With best regards, Alexei, ESSD, Intel
