On 03/11/2011 08:49, johann Sorel wrote: > You are right, if they want they can use it with this license but > still it's a source of problems. we have plenty of different licenses > out there, MIT, BSD, GPL ... and some more license we surely be > created in the futur, mixing them is not always fun. All of them are > not fully compatible. Legal problems are something really dirty when > you encounter them, noone working on open-source projects want to > have such problems. > > The apache license is ~more or less~ fine today (everyone has it's > own preference), but might become a problem later. To avoid those > problems the change can only be done now while the PMC is still > here.
There are no rights granted explicitly to the PMC itself, so it is not true that anything is 'lost' in this regard when the PMC is disbanded. > Setting it in public domain can also make it revive, forks can start > much more easely from it. Several JVM have ~dyed~ (or are in lawsuit > like google dalvik, android) in the last year. Having a few more vm > out there would be for the best, specialy if they are already > reliable alternatives like harmony. Contributions to the Harmony project are all made under the ICLA [1] which grants licenses to the Foundation and to recipients of the code we distribute. While Apache owns the collective work of a release, the original author retains ownership of their individual contributions. Therefore Apache can only operate within the terms of the license granted. Even if we wanted to - the gift is not ours to give. [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt Regards, Tim
