Hi, On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 03:11 +1000, Peter Donald wrote: > Feel free to pretend I am dumb. Basically you want that anything that is > contributed to Harmony via mailing list "can be shared with projects > like GNU Classpath, GCC, Kaffe, CACAO, JamVM, etc." which is an > admirable goal to be sure.
Yes. But lets drop the 'via the mailing list' part. As Leo said we want clarity above all. So no differences in how things are contributed. > But shouldn't this go both ways - should not anything contributed to any > of those projects be able to be shared with Harmony? AFAIK many of the > contributors make a conscious decision about which licenses they will or > will not contribute their work under. We can clearly only decide about our own Harmony work. And what we accept as contributions in that space. I would love to go both ways with code from already free and hopefully soon liberated proprietary code bases, but that might not be possible in the short term. For GNU Classpath we are willing to make a compromise to get larger cooperation. And seeing that we have more then 20 compiler and runtime projects around it I think we succeeded nicely there (*). Although it has been said that we should clarify some of the language we use for our exception to the GPL, so we are working on that. For Harmony we can lead by example. We are starting here with a clean slate. Lets not by default adopt a policy that would prevent adoption of the code by most of the existing projects. I started this effort together with the others to build bridges between the existing projects. That is a long process with many steps. Lets not make the mistake to close the bridge as the first step by adopting a default license policy that prevents cooperation with the existing free software projects. Cheers, Mark (*) http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/stories.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
