Hi, On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 21:50 +0200, Leo Simons wrote: > NOT A CONTRIBUTION*
LIKEWISE. > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Just one little nitpick. > > Heh. > > > 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? :-)). As one of the founders I was under the impression that Harmony is about cooperation and building bridges first, and that we host the project currently at Apache is just a happy coincidence. Apache is a nice environment and infrastructure to have around a project. And it certainly is of great marketing value. But half of the people that signed the Harmony proposal don't have an Apache background. We all joined because we wanted something that is more that just another Apache project. We wanted to see GNU Classpath, gcj, kaffe, ikvm.net and all the other free software projects to unite and work together with the rest of the community, whether FSF, ASF, independent or corporate. > I like the simplicity and I think we need that kind of simplicity. That is why I proposed to explicitly state that public communication is in the public domain. > 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!) Agreed. And Geir also stated that submissions to the mailinglist should never be checked into a code base without all the necessary paperwork in place. > 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. But change is what Harmony is all about! We are all changing because we are now cooperating. So yes, my suggestion is that we make the rule for Harmony to only have code contributions that are both GPL and APL compatible. Whether we do that for now by explictly stating that all public works are in the public domain, by dual licensing APL/GPL, using a modified GPL-exception (like we do for GNU Classpath) or an APL with a Free Software friendly patent retaliation exception (or just strike the second half of clause 3), or use the license of Intel ORP or IKVM.NET as compromise is just an implementation detail. (Both of these last two licenses attached. I prefer the ikvm one.) Just show that we are serious about cooperation by being clear about it upfront. So that everybody can feel free to contribute to the mailinglist of the code in the knowledge that it will be reusable by all the projects out there and all the projects that want to cooperate on this. > * wonder how soon this becomes /really/ annoying ;) I guess we can keep this up for months. Just hack your mail client to have a TOP sig :) 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/
Intel License Agreement
For Open Runtime Platform (ORP)
Copyright (C) 2000, Intel Corporation, all rights reserved. Third party
copyrights are property of their respective owners.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions
in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or
other materials provided with the distribution. The name of Intel
Corporation may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL INTEL OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Copyright (C) 2002, 2003, 2004 Jeroen Frijters This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
