I wonder if the classpath vm interface classes where public domain that issue would be solved. After all, there isn't much value, I believe, on these classes only.
On 12/5/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, sublicensing. I believe the terms are not clear on how third > parties can sublicense a composite of ASF-licensed works and GPL > licensed works. IANAL and i don't understand it fully. But i was told > that this is a problem and that problem is mitigated by the fact that > Classpath is under GPL+Exception and a firewall can be set up by > standard > interfaces. That's why the VM Interface stuff is important. > > But even then, there is no guarantee that people will want to do it > because they can't make a closed fork if they want to for whatever > reason. (Which ASL allows and if people wanted to do that, they would > already be participating in one of the existing VM's in the classpath > galaxy). Yes, i do want to enable people to download and use > Harmony+Classpath together but in my mind that cannot be the only > choice. > > thanks, > dims > > On 12/4/05, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 02:13:30PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Anthony Green wrote: > > > > > > >On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 11:14 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > >>That said, I think that to be fair, we need to distinguish between > > > >>"using" in the sense of what GCC is doing - a tool outside the scope > > > >>of effort of the project enabling some behavior in a standard and > > > >>non- > > > >>intrusive way (just like we don't care about the license of the OS we > > > >>run on), and "using" in the sense of developers of a project making a > > > >>conscious decision to design and implement software with a > > > >>dependency. > > > > > > > >This is wrong thinking. You aren't simply "using" the libgcc > > > >routines, > > > >as you would OS resources. You are linking your application to the > > > >libgcc library and redistributing the resulting combined binary. > > > >This > > > >is precisely what the license talks about and enables. > > > > > > Ok - while it's not exactly the same, the fundamental point I was > > > trying to make is sound, I think, in that in writing my program, I am > > > not at all thinking "hey, I'll use stuff from libgcc". I'm just > > > writing a C program. After that, compiling and creating the > > > executable is a second independent step - the receiver of the > > > software has no burden to switch compilers wrt libgcc. > > > > He is talking about the binary, you're talking about the source. Reread > > what he said with that in mind, and it should become obvious that you > > are both right, since you are talking past him ;) But with respect to > > ASF's (legally fine, just aparently ruffling a few feathers among less > > C-aware members) usage of GPL+linked exception licensed code from gcc, > > Anthony is correct, there is no doubt about it. Check out the gcc > > changelogs, and you will find that he knows very well what he's > > talking about with respect to gcc. > > > > > > > > The license needs to allow this, or using it would be a non-starter. > > > > > > > > > > >Whether or not you make a distinction between this kind of GPL > > > >+exception > > > >usage and libstdc++ or GNU Classpath usage hardly matters, since the > > > >licenses themselves don't make a distinction. > > > > > > That would only be true if there is a standard interface / component > > > model for the classlibrary so that there can be competing > > > implementations and users have the ability to switch from one > > > implementation to another without significant burden in the event > > > they wish to make changes, additions or enhancements, and have the > > > freedom to choose what they do with their work. > > > > > > That's why I think that the our componentization efforts are so > > > important. > > > > You seem to have narrowly missed what Anthony said, and went on > > a defensive tangent instead ;) > > > > You don't have to defend the usage of GPL+linking > > exception licensed code by the Apache Software Foundation, all of us > > non-Luddites here agree that the GPL+linking exception works as it > > should and the binaries shipped by the ASF are fine. > > > > This stuff is easy, and pretty obvious to anyone with a dissasembler, > > and/or insight about C compilers, so let's have the same rules that > > allow httpd to ship their binaries using/incorporating > > GPL+linking exception licensed code, ASF's flagship product, after > > all, be officially ratified, as they'd allow us to do the same. > > > > Is there something left that would speak against using GNU Classpath > > in Harmony, after we have established as a fact that the ASF is indeed > > happily distributing code using code under the same sort of licenses > > and has been doing so for years? > > > > If not, then let's do it. > > > > cheers, > > dalibor topic > > > > > > > > geir > > > > > > -- > > > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ >
