NOT A CONTRIBUTION* Mark Wielaard wrote: > Just one little nitpick.
Heh. > On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:22 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >>The terms and conditions that apply to >>your Contributions are defined by either a contributor license >>agreement (CLA) signed by you and/or your employer or, if no such CLA >>is on file at the Foundation, by the terms and conditions of >>Contributions as defined by the Apache License, Version 2.0. > > Could we not use the Apache License, Version 2.0. But state something > like "are in the public domain". (Or use APL/GPL-dual license, LGPL, > MIT/X, modern-BSD, etc.) So that we can all use such contributions. > Most of the existing projects, like gcj, kaffe, cacao, jamvm, GNU > Classpath, etc. cannot accept GPL-incompatible code. As the world currently spins, people that contribute to Apache do that with the common understanding that they're contributing stuff under the Apache License (makes some kind of sense doesn't it? :-)). I like the simplicity and I think we need that kind of simplicity. I don't want to think about the implications of something being submitted through e-mail having a different legal status than something submitted through an issue tracker or through SVN (and, heck, that stuff is submitted as e-mails automatically!) While I understand your rationale and goal, for the reason above I think such a move is a bad idea unless we actually dual-license all of Harmony and *all* contributions are under those terms. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad idea (I'll be firmly keeping my non-existent opinion to myself on that topic, thank you very much! :-)), but it would certainly constitute, an, ehm, change. cheers, Leo * wonder how soon this becomes /really/ annoying ;)
