[general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com>]

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331

-- 
Best regards,
Andrew Zhang

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>]

Leo Li wrote:
> Is it a good news for Harmony?
>
It should be a good news if Sun chooses "Apache License, Version 2.0". ;-)

> On 11/9/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331 
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew Zhang
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM 

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

Ivan Volosyuk wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org> wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:
>>
>> > Classically, licensors seem to just make a statement about it.
>>
>> Yup, authors should know best what terms apply to their works. 
>> Practically
>> speaking, if they went with the GPL, Sun could just say "it's not 
>> 'viral' for
>> all the practical purposes" and that would be the quick end of any scary
>> problem, I guess.
> 
> IMHO, there can be still scary problems if some parts of the code are
> covered by patents even if the code is licensed by GPL v2. Am I
> correct?

http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/geir/archives/001433_open_source_java_v_gpl_and_patents.html

However, once you pass the TCK, you do receive all necessary IP from the 
members of the EG.

This isn't a worry for us at all, but it will be interesting to see - 
once we know the definite details - how this will work out.  Clearly Sun 
has thought hard about this.  I don't expect them to make any mistakes 
here - all implications will be intentional.

geir

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Ivan Volosyuk <iv...@gmail.com>]

On 11/10/06, Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org> wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:
>
> > Classically, licensors seem to just make a statement about it.
>
> Yup, authors should know best what terms apply to their works. Practically
> speaking, if they went with the GPL, Sun could just say "it's not 'viral' for
> all the practical purposes" and that would be the quick end of any scary
> problem, I guess.

IMHO, there can be still scary problems if some parts of the code are
covered by patents even if the code is licensed by GPL v2. Am I
correct?

-- 
Ivan

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

LvJimmy，Jing wrote:
> Oops！GPL v2? I can hardly believe it!

Why?

> Does it mean, all codes using Sun's JDK have to take GPL?

No.

geir

> Crazy and unbelieveable... However I like GPL ;)
> 
> 在06-11-13，Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>
>> Mark Reinhold's blog has confirmed this news. He said:
>> ...
>> Sun is open-sourcing its entire Java stack―ME, SE, and EE―under the
>> GNU General Public License, version 2.
>>
>> The license choice―which has taken many by surprise (gotcha!)―is a
>> giant leap. For more on the big picture, including a link to
>> tomorrow's webcast announcement, please see
>> http://sun.com/opensource/java.
>> ...
>>
>> link: http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/one_giant_leap
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

It's actually Sun's trademark, not the JCPs.

And I don't like the GPL - but that's ok, because there are choices for
people.  Apache Harmony or Sun's OpenJDK project.

geir


Jin Mingjian wrote:
> Java is still the trademark of Sun:) So I think we can do control
> though JCP. BTW, I like GPL as well:) Whatever, this is big step for
> Java community.
> 
> 在 06-11-13，Geir Magnusson Jr.<ge...@pobox.com> 写道：
>>
>>
>> Jin Mingjian wrote:
>> > But does Apache License make JDK out of control? I don't think so:)
>>
>> I think that it just means that it helps them limit the number of
>> proprietary forks of the code.
>>
>> But I'm not worried about that being harmful no matter what the license
>> - the market doesn't want broken Java.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> >
>> > 在 06-11-13，Geir Magnusson Jr.<ge...@pobox.com> 写道：
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jin Mingjian wrote:
>> >> > GPL is not very compatible with Apache License. So, I guess Sun want
>> >> > to prevent Harmony from using any codes they owned?! Very Very 
>> Very...
>> >>
>> >> No - it was simply about control.
>> >>
>> >> geir
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > 在 06-11-13，LvJimmy，Jing<fi...@gmail.com> 写道：
>> >> >> Oops！GPL v2? I can hardly believe it!
>> >> >> Does it mean, all codes using Sun's JDK have to take GPL?
>> >> >> Crazy and unbelieveable... However I like GPL ;)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 在06-11-13，Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com> 写道：
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Mark Reinhold's blog has confirmed this news. He said:
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> > Sun is open-sourcing its entire Java stack―ME, SE, and 
>> EE―under the
>> >> >> > GNU General Public License, version 2.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The license choice―which has taken many by surprise 
>> (gotcha!)―is a
>> >> >> > giant leap. For more on the big picture, including a link to
>> >> >> > tomorrow's webcast announcement, please see
>> >> >> > http://sun.com/opensource/java.
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > link: http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/one_giant_leap
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Best Regards!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jimmy, Jing Lv
>> >> >> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com>]

Java is still the trademark of Sun:) So I think we can do control
though JCP. BTW, I like GPL as well:) Whatever, this is big step for
Java community.

在 06-11-13，Geir Magnusson Jr.<ge...@pobox.com> 写道：
>
>
> Jin Mingjian wrote:
> > But does Apache License make JDK out of control? I don't think so:)
>
> I think that it just means that it helps them limit the number of
> proprietary forks of the code.
>
> But I'm not worried about that being harmful no matter what the license
> - the market doesn't want broken Java.
>
> geir
>
> >
> > 在 06-11-13，Geir Magnusson Jr.<ge...@pobox.com> 写道：
> >>
> >>
> >> Jin Mingjian wrote:
> >> > GPL is not very compatible with Apache License. So, I guess Sun want
> >> > to prevent Harmony from using any codes they owned?! Very Very Very...
> >>
> >> No - it was simply about control.
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 在 06-11-13，LvJimmy，Jing<fi...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >> >> Oops！GPL v2? I can hardly believe it!
> >> >> Does it mean, all codes using Sun's JDK have to take GPL?
> >> >> Crazy and unbelieveable... However I like GPL ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> 在06-11-13，Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Mark Reinhold's blog has confirmed this news. He said:
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> > Sun is open-sourcing its entire Java stack―ME, SE, and EE―under the
> >> >> > GNU General Public License, version 2.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The license choice―which has taken many by surprise (gotcha!)―is a
> >> >> > giant leap. For more on the big picture, including a link to
> >> >> > tomorrow's webcast announcement, please see
> >> >> > http://sun.com/opensource/java.
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > link: http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/one_giant_leap
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> Best Regards!
> >> >>
> >> >> Jimmy, Jing Lv
> >> >> China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

Jin Mingjian wrote:
> But does Apache License make JDK out of control? I don't think so:)

I think that it just means that it helps them limit the number of
proprietary forks of the code.

But I'm not worried about that being harmful no matter what the license
- the market doesn't want broken Java.

geir

> 
> 在 06-11-13，Geir Magnusson Jr.<ge...@pobox.com> 写道：
>>
>>
>> Jin Mingjian wrote:
>> > GPL is not very compatible with Apache License. So, I guess Sun want
>> > to prevent Harmony from using any codes they owned?! Very Very Very...
>>
>> No - it was simply about control.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> >
>> > 在 06-11-13，LvJimmy，Jing<fi...@gmail.com> 写道：
>> >> Oops！GPL v2? I can hardly believe it!
>> >> Does it mean, all codes using Sun's JDK have to take GPL?
>> >> Crazy and unbelieveable... However I like GPL ;)
>> >>
>> >> 在06-11-13，Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com> 写道：
>> >> >
>> >> > Mark Reinhold's blog has confirmed this news. He said:
>> >> > ...
>> >> > Sun is open-sourcing its entire Java stack―ME, SE, and EE―under the
>> >> > GNU General Public License, version 2.
>> >> >
>> >> > The license choice―which has taken many by surprise (gotcha!)―is a
>> >> > giant leap. For more on the big picture, including a link to
>> >> > tomorrow's webcast announcement, please see
>> >> > http://sun.com/opensource/java.
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> > link: http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/one_giant_leap
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards!
>> >>
>> >> Jimmy, Jing Lv
>> >> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>> >>
>>

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com>]

But does Apache License make JDK out of control? I don't think so:)

在 06-11-13，Geir Magnusson Jr.<ge...@pobox.com> 写道：
>
>
> Jin Mingjian wrote:
> > GPL is not very compatible with Apache License. So, I guess Sun want
> > to prevent Harmony from using any codes they owned?! Very Very Very...
>
> No - it was simply about control.
>
> geir
>
> >
> > 在 06-11-13，LvJimmy，Jing<fi...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >> Oops！GPL v2? I can hardly believe it!
> >> Does it mean, all codes using Sun's JDK have to take GPL?
> >> Crazy and unbelieveable... However I like GPL ;)
> >>
> >> 在06-11-13，Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >> >
> >> > Mark Reinhold's blog has confirmed this news. He said:
> >> > ...
> >> > Sun is open-sourcing its entire Java stack―ME, SE, and EE―under the
> >> > GNU General Public License, version 2.
> >> >
> >> > The license choice―which has taken many by surprise (gotcha!)―is a
> >> > giant leap. For more on the big picture, including a link to
> >> > tomorrow's webcast announcement, please see
> >> > http://sun.com/opensource/java.
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > link: http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/one_giant_leap
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Best Regards!
> >>
> >> Jimmy, Jing Lv
> >> China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >>
>

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

Jin Mingjian wrote:
> GPL is not very compatible with Apache License. So, I guess Sun want
> to prevent Harmony from using any codes they owned?! Very Very Very...

No - it was simply about control.

geir

> 
> 在 06-11-13，LvJimmy，Jing<fi...@gmail.com> 写道：
>> Oops！GPL v2? I can hardly believe it!
>> Does it mean, all codes using Sun's JDK have to take GPL?
>> Crazy and unbelieveable... However I like GPL ;)
>>
>> 在06-11-13，Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com> 写道：
>> >
>> > Mark Reinhold's blog has confirmed this news. He said:
>> > ...
>> > Sun is open-sourcing its entire Java stack―ME, SE, and EE―under the
>> > GNU General Public License, version 2.
>> >
>> > The license choice―which has taken many by surprise (gotcha!)―is a
>> > giant leap. For more on the big picture, including a link to
>> > tomorrow's webcast announcement, please see
>> > http://sun.com/opensource/java.
>> > ...
>> >
>> > link: http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/one_giant_leap
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Best Regards!
>>
>> Jimmy, Jing Lv
>> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com>]

GPL is not very compatible with Apache License. So, I guess Sun want
to prevent Harmony from using any codes they owned?! Very Very Very...

在 06-11-13，LvJimmy，Jing<fi...@gmail.com> 写道：
> Oops！GPL v2? I can hardly believe it!
> Does it mean, all codes using Sun's JDK have to take GPL?
> Crazy and unbelieveable... However I like GPL ;)
>
> 在06-11-13，Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >
> > Mark Reinhold's blog has confirmed this news. He said:
> > ...
> > Sun is open-sourcing its entire Java stack―ME, SE, and EE―under the
> > GNU General Public License, version 2.
> >
> > The license choice―which has taken many by surprise (gotcha!)―is a
> > giant leap. For more on the big picture, including a link to
> > tomorrow's webcast announcement, please see
> > http://sun.com/opensource/java.
> > ...
> >
> > link: http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/one_giant_leap
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best Regards!
>
> Jimmy, Jing Lv
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[LvJimmy，Jing <fi...@gmail.com>]

Oops！GPL v2? I can hardly believe it!
Does it mean, all codes using Sun's JDK have to take GPL?
Crazy and unbelieveable... However I like GPL ;)

在06-11-13，Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Mark Reinhold's blog has confirmed this news. He said:
> ...
> Sun is open-sourcing its entire Java stack―ME, SE, and EE―under the
> GNU General Public License, version 2.
>
> The license choice―which has taken many by surprise (gotcha!)―is a
> giant leap. For more on the big picture, including a link to
> tomorrow's webcast announcement, please see
> http://sun.com/opensource/java.
> ...
>
> link: http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/one_giant_leap
>



-- 

Best Regards!

Jimmy, Jing Lv
China Software Development Lab, IBM

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Jin Mingjian <ji...@gmail.com>]

Mark Reinhold's blog has confirmed this news. He said:
...
Sun is open-sourcing its entire Java stack―ME, SE, and EE―under the
GNU General Public License, version 2.

The license choice―which has taken many by surprise (gotcha!)―is a
giant leap. For more on the big picture, including a link to
tomorrow's webcast announcement, please see
http://sun.com/opensource/java.
...

link: http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/one_giant_leap

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>]

Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:

> >> For 
> >> example, see the Hibernate clarification to the LGPL, or how MySQL just 
> >> basically told the FSF that the GPL *is* compatible with the Apache License.
> > 
> > Judging from the FOSS exception license text[1], what MySQL did was to simply
> > add an exception to the GPL, that permits software under a set of open source
> > licenses to create derivative works. I believe that's what you meant, right?
> 
> That wasn't my read - I read it that you can now combine software from 
> MySQL that is under the GPL with software under the Apache License (for 
> example), which is something that the FSF has explicitly prohibited.

Oh, I just wanted to explain that MySQL didn't literally go out and tell the FSF
that GPL and Apache License are compatible. It would be an odd claim to make for
a third party that's not a steward of the licenses involved, anyway.

I think we violently agree on the effects and motivations for the exception, and
are getting way off-topic. ;)

cheers,
dalibor topic

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:
> 
>> Classically, licensors seem to just make a statement about it.  
> 
> Yup, authors should know best what terms apply to their works. Practically
> speaking, if they went with the GPL, Sun could just say "it's not 'viral' for
> all the practical purposes" and that would be the quick end of any scary
> problem, I guess.
> 
>> For 
>> example, see the Hibernate clarification to the LGPL, or how MySQL just 
>> basically told the FSF that the GPL *is* compatible with the Apache License.
> 
> Judging from the FOSS exception license text[1], what MySQL did was to simply
> add an exception to the GPL, that permits software under a set of open source
> licenses to create derivative works. I believe that's what you meant, right?

That wasn't my read - I read it that you can now combine software from 
MySQL that is under the GPL with software under the Apache License (for 
example), which is something that the FSF has explicitly prohibited.

geir


> 
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
> 
> [1] http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html ...  it has
> the familiar "As a special exception to the terms and conditions of version 2.0
> of the GPL" ring.
> 
> 

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>]

Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:

> Classically, licensors seem to just make a statement about it.  

Yup, authors should know best what terms apply to their works. Practically
speaking, if they went with the GPL, Sun could just say "it's not 'viral' for
all the practical purposes" and that would be the quick end of any scary
problem, I guess.

> For 
> example, see the Hibernate clarification to the LGPL, or how MySQL just 
> basically told the FSF that the GPL *is* compatible with the Apache License.

Judging from the FOSS exception license text[1], what MySQL did was to simply
add an exception to the GPL, that permits software under a set of open source
licenses to create derivative works. I believe that's what you meant, right?

cheers,
dalibor topic

[1] http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html ...  it has
the familiar "As a special exception to the terms and conditions of version 2.0
of the GPL" ring.

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:
> 
>>
>> Alexey Petrenko wrote:
>>> Java under GPL? It is probably bad news for Java developers...
>>>
>>> As far as I understand you'll can not create non GPL application on
>>> top of GPL Java...
>>> License gurus, is that right?
>> GPL proponents claim that there is no problem running under a GPL-ed VM, 
>> but given aspects such as JNI and such, I do wonder if that's simply 
>> wishful thinking.
> 
> I'd be very surprised, in case that they actually decided to go with the GPL, if
> they haven't thought about all that, and have a bunch of good answers that
> explain that all the desirable things can happen without leaving any room for
> fear, uncertainty or doubt about the effects of the license.
> 

Classically, licensors seem to just make a statement about it.  For 
example, see the Hibernate clarification to the LGPL, or how MySQL just 
basically told the FSF that the GPL *is* compatible with the Apache License.

> After all, one should not forget that Sun has managed to get the JDK into
> Debian. So they must have more than sufficient experience in dealing with
> armchair lawyering about their license choices on the internet. ;)

We'll see.  It will be interesting.

geir

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>]

Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:

> 
> 
> Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > Java under GPL? It is probably bad news for Java developers...
> > 
> > As far as I understand you'll can not create non GPL application on
> > top of GPL Java...
> > License gurus, is that right?
> 
> GPL proponents claim that there is no problem running under a GPL-ed VM, 
> but given aspects such as JNI and such, I do wonder if that's simply 
> wishful thinking.

I'd be very surprised, in case that they actually decided to go with the GPL, if
they haven't thought about all that, and have a bunch of good answers that
explain that all the desirable things can happen without leaving any room for
fear, uncertainty or doubt about the effects of the license.

After all, one should not forget that Sun has managed to get the JDK into
Debian. So they must have more than sufficient experience in dealing with
armchair lawyering about their license choices on the internet. ;)

cheers,
dalibor topic

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> Java under GPL? It is probably bad news for Java developers...
> 
> As far as I understand you'll can not create non GPL application on
> top of GPL Java...
> License gurus, is that right?

It's a good question, but remember that Sun will be creating binaries 
and probably distributing them under the same kinds of binary licenses 
they do today - the majority of Java users don't give a hoot if the 
source is licensed under the GPL - they just care about getting a binary.

That said, you still have other groups - say the Debian community - that 
might want to get a TCK license and certify the codebase themselves. 
They'd have to distribute the resulting binary under a GPL-compatible 
license.

GPL proponents claim that there is no problem running under a GPL-ed VM, 
but given aspects such as JNI and such, I do wonder if that's simply 
wishful thinking.

geir

> 
> SY, Alexey
> 
> 2006/11/9, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
>> Is it a good news for Harmony?
>>
>> On 11/9/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331 
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Andrew Zhang
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Leo Li
>> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>
>>
> 

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>]

Java under GPL? It is probably bad news for Java developers...

As far as I understand you'll can not create non GPL application on
top of GPL Java...
License gurus, is that right?

SY, Alexey

2006/11/9, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
> Is it a good news for Harmony?
>
> On 11/9/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew Zhang
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Leo Li
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

It's somewhat of a no-op, IMO.

Sun had a very difficult decision to make wrt licensing.  They had quite 
a few competing forces to deal with such as :

1) How to try maintain whatever 'control' over compatibility they 
currently have.  (I do think this is just them "fighting the last war", 
as I do believe the market wants compatible Java and nothing else.)

2) How to try and keep the licensing revenue for the class library for 
those (like IBM) that get the classlibrary under commercial terms that 
allow proprietary implementations

3) How to build as many bridges to the open source community as they can


So my theory has been that Sun's business goal was to build a "walled 
garden" for it's users, customers and ISV partners.  I'm pretty sure 
that like with Glassfish and OpenSolaris, Sun will require that 
contributors grant Sun joint copyright for any contribution, allowing 
Sun to relicense (read "sell") the codebase under terms favorable to 
proprietary implementations.  I think that this aspect will prevent 
participation both from organizations that wouldn't want to have to 
purchase their contributions back from Sun as well as Free Software 
advocates that don't want to write software for proprietary implementations.

It will be interesting to see how it works out.

geir

Leo Li wrote:
> Is it a good news for Harmony?
> 
> On 11/9/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331 
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew Zhang
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:
> 
>> I think that in order to really work for the "free-as-in-stallman" ;) 
>> community, someone will have to literally fork sun's GPL-ed 
>> implementation, as I'm guessing GPL advocates will want to be able to 
>> contribute / augment / maintain the codebase, but not allow Sun to 
>> re-license their contributions under commercial terms.
> 
> Sounds like a pointless idea to me, as a GPL advocate. ;)

Me too, but if you don't want to contribute under commercial terms... 
BTW, I'm not advocating anyone do that.

> 
> Whether I contribute to GNU Classpath, Apache Harmony or Sun's project, the end
> result can be used in proprietary runtimes anyway, and in Classpath's & Sun's
> case actually is used that way. That doesn't hurt my own use of that code, or
> that of my users.

Yep - this is my attitude as well.  There is no loss if someone chooses 
to close source something that is available open elsewhere.


> 
> If people chose to license that code under more restrictive terms, than it's
> available under, than that's their right, as is mine not to make that choice. As
> long as the same code remains available under a licensing choice that allows me
> to use it (i.e. GPL-compatible in my GPL advocate case), I'd see no reason to
> complain about it, or to refuse to contribute to it.
> 

I'm just not sure if everyone feels that way.  I've heard the standard 
rhetoric about not supporting "code hoarders" and such...

geir

> cheers,
> dalibor topic
> 
> 

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>]

Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir <at> pobox.com> writes:

> I think that in order to really work for the "free-as-in-stallman" ;) 
> community, someone will have to literally fork sun's GPL-ed 
> implementation, as I'm guessing GPL advocates will want to be able to 
> contribute / augment / maintain the codebase, but not allow Sun to 
> re-license their contributions under commercial terms.

Sounds like a pointless idea to me, as a GPL advocate. ;)

Whether I contribute to GNU Classpath, Apache Harmony or Sun's project, the end
result can be used in proprietary runtimes anyway, and in Classpath's & Sun's
case actually is used that way. That doesn't hurt my own use of that code, or
that of my users.

If people chose to license that code under more restrictive terms, than it's
available under, than that's their right, as is mine not to make that choice. As
long as the same code remains available under a licensing choice that allows me
to use it (i.e. GPL-compatible in my GPL advocate case), I'd see no reason to
complain about it, or to refuse to contribute to it.

cheers,
dalibor topic

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

David Gilbert wrote:
> No, and probably by design.  If this is true, Sun's Java will fill the 
> niche market for free-as-in-freedom runtimes, making it very hard for 
> Harmony (and GNU Classpath) to find an audience.  But if all you want is 
> a free-as-in-freedom runtime, then the outcome is still great!

I dunno.  Maybe.

I think that in order to really work for the "free-as-in-stallman" ;) 
community, someone will have to literally fork sun's GPL-ed 
implementation, as I'm guessing GPL advocates will want to be able to 
contribute / augment / maintain the codebase, but not allow Sun to 
re-license their contributions under commercial terms.

This is only a guess.  I can't speak for GPL advocates, nor am I sure 
what Sun will do in the end wrt community and governance.

No matter what, it won't be boring.

geir

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave Gilbert
> http://www.jfree.org/
> 
> Leo Li wrote:
>> Is it a good news for Harmony?
>>
>> On 11/9/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331 
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Andrew Zhang
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[David Gilbert <da...@object-refinery.com>]

No, and probably by design.  If this is true, Sun's Java will fill the 
niche market for free-as-in-freedom runtimes, making it very hard for 
Harmony (and GNU Classpath) to find an audience.  But if all you want is 
a free-as-in-freedom runtime, then the outcome is still great!

Regards,

Dave Gilbert
http://www.jfree.org/

Leo Li wrote:
> Is it a good news for Harmony?
>
> On 11/9/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331 
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew Zhang
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [general] Sun will take GPL License?

[Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>]

Is it a good news for Harmony?

On 11/9/06, Andrew Zhang <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articleId=193600331
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew Zhang
>
>


-- 
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM