Hi, On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 22:34 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > People working on Kaffe/Classpath are gonna advise us..see their names > on the proposal :) We (Apache Gump team) has been working with them > to make Kaffe/Classpath better for a while now > (http://brutus.apache.org/gump/kaffe/buildLog.html). Harmony is going > to increase synergies. We are working in parallel with FSF folks on > the licensing issues as well for while now. Please see the FAQ as > well. we are gonna leverage every bit of code and expertise that we > can to make this happen.
As GNU Classpath maintainer I must admit that I am not 100% happy with how the announcement came out. I had hoped it would have more emphasized the fact that we would do everything in our power to work out the philosophical, legal and practical issues when reusing existing code for Harmony. I do however acknowledge that some of the reluctance comes from my side. I explicitly said that I would not contribute to any Apache licensed project as long as code distributed under the (L)GPL and ASL couldn't be mixed into a larger work. That is why there are actually multiple lists of "interested individuals", some people don't want to contribute to a new code base that isn't acceptable to both the GNU and the Apache community. But those people, like me, might still be interested in the technical discussions around such a new code base (even though the duplicated effort hurts to even think about). > On 5/6/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * That SUN is not expected to ever grant a free license to run the TCK > > for a GPL-licensed project, so the only way to get a "certified" free > > Java implementation is to ignore the existing GPL'd stuff and start > > again from scratch? Kaffe is currently in the process of getting access to the TCK: http://www.advogato.org/person/robilad/diary.html?start=64 > > * That you feel that the availability of an Apache-licensed project is > > important enough to duplicate all the existing GPL'd effort? If so, why? > > Who in particular wants an Apache-licensed implementation and can't > > accept a GPL'd one? At least for the GNU Classpath project we have a special exception to the GPL that we think balances the GPL copyleft terms against the need to attract a wider community helping with the development and enhancements to our core class library implementation. http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html If these terms are unclear or might stop certain people from contributing to GNU Classpath we would like to hear about that. We setup a wiki for discussion: http://developer.classpath.org/licensing/ > > * That Kaffe/Classpath are somehow flawed and that it is necessary to > > start again? Obviously I don't think so. But if they are then I want to hear about it (and fix it). That is why I am here. > > * That because Apache is a well-respected player in the Java community > > that a project hosted at Apache will be so much better accepted that it > > is worth discarding all the Kaffe/Classpath work done so far? It might well be that adding Apache to a name automatically attracts more contributors then adding GNU to it. If that is true and that would be the only reason to discard all the work done so far I think I could convince some people to add "Apache" to their project name and make use of the apache hosting facilities. Although I believe the FSF savannah systems are doing just fine. Cheers, Mark -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
