You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Anthony Green <gr...@redhat.com> on 2005/12/01 08:03:44 UTC
Re: Full disclosure
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is that it might
> be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark seemed to think
> that is not an unattainable goal. When I get my hands on some spare time (I hope it'll
> be under the christmas tree) I hope to push forward om some of that.
I don't understand this. The GNU Classpath license was designed to be
even more liberal than the LGPL. What makes relicensing GNU Classpath
to LGPL a good idea?
AG
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 1, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> Sometimes, it's easier to rewrite some code than to convince people
> to relicense.
>
> Sometimes, it's easier to relicense some code than to convince
> people that mixing two licenses is: a) legal and b) useful for
> their ultimate goal.
>
> Sometimes, it's easier to tell everybody to f**k off and spend your
> life with your family/girlfriends/friends instead.
>
> At times, my life feels like a quantum superimposition of the above
> three states ;-)
>
The superposition will collapse at some point.... :)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 2, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Elliott Draper wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> *snip*
>>
>> Sometimes, it's easier to rewrite some code than to convince
>> people to relicense.
>>
>> *snip*
>
>
> Perhaps this is one of those times? I don't wish to negate the
> valiant efforts of those trying to resolve the licensing issues,
> but I think that as an aside, maybe it'd be worthwhile to start a
> class library project all of our own?
We have one started :) The recent IBM and Intel contributions are
exactly that.
> In time, if the licensing issues with other projects were resolved,
> then there would be nothing to stop us trying to integrate the best
> of all worlds, and trying to combine all the available classlib
> offerings to provide one open-source free implementation under the
> Harmony banner.
Yes - or give users choices. That's my hope for the modularity and
interface work we've been discussing.
>
> I for one haven't had any exposure to the source code of any of the
> classlib projects out there currently, I guess that would be a
> factor in who would be able to contribute to a new classlib
> codebase... The real question though is there any interest in this?
> Is there anyone else on this list who like me is itching to write
> and contribute some new code to the project, and who would be
> interested in starting to implement the class libraries? :-)
see enhanced/trunk/sandbox/contribs/ibm_core in SVN
geir
>
> Thoughts, comments welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> -= El =-
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Elliott Draper <el...@eldiablo.co.uk>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> *snip*
>
> Sometimes, it's easier to rewrite some code than to convince people to
> relicense.
>
> *snip*
Perhaps this is one of those times? I don't wish to negate the valiant
efforts of those trying to resolve the licensing issues, but I think
that as an aside, maybe it'd be worthwhile to start a class library
project all of our own? In time, if the licensing issues with other
projects were resolved, then there would be nothing to stop us trying to
integrate the best of all worlds, and trying to combine all the
available classlib offerings to provide one open-source free
implementation under the Harmony banner.
I for one haven't had any exposure to the source code of any of the
classlib projects out there currently, I guess that would be a factor in
who would be able to contribute to a new classlib codebase... The real
question though is there any interest in this? Is there anyone else on
this list who like me is itching to write and contribute some new code
to the project, and who would be interested in starting to implement the
class libraries? :-)
Thoughts, comments welcome.
Cheers,
-= El =-
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 07:32:15PM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> >I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking exception
> >as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made using gcc
> >that are
> >distributed from Apache.org anyway, and would allow us to ship
> >gcc-compiled binaries of Harmony. Someone tell the httpd guys to raise it
> >at legal-discuss.
>
> Hmmm, interesting claim.
>
> Can you say more about this?
See the other post of my droning about libcrt and gcc's startup code on
OS X. ;)
>
> Cliff, were you aware of this issue?
>
It's not a real issue, as in "OMG! We've got to do something about it!". But it
should be useful in persuading those board members that are sceptical
about GPL+linking exception sort of licenses in general, as otherwise we
can't ship anything that uses GPL+linking exception licensed code, and
unsurprisingly, gcc's little startup routines are licensed under
GPL+linking exception, and in general tend to end up in the resulting binary.
But thanks to the linking exception, they impose no restrictions on the
license of the binary.
Not that anyone shipping proprietary code compiled with gcc has had
problems with that, afaik. And there is a bootload of proprietary
embedded systems that use gcc as their only toolchain, as well as big
operating systems vendors shipping gcc based toolchains.
In GNU Classpath's case, the actual exception text could be improved to
reflect ASF's needs for clarity in the Java space.
But I believe the problem we faced
regarding the GNU Classpath license was simply someone having doubts
about the legality of the GPL+linking exception construct, which is
something the ASF needs to have an informed opinion on. Otherwise
ASF distributing a httpd built with gcc would indeed be weird, if
we ended up regarding such license constructs as questionable.
cheers,
dalibor topic
> --
> Stefano.
>
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
> I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking exception
> as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made using gcc that are
> distributed from Apache.org anyway, and would allow us to ship gcc-compiled
> binaries of Harmony. Someone tell the httpd guys to raise it at legal-discuss.
Hmmm, interesting claim.
Can you say more about this?
Cliff, were you aware of this issue?
--
Stefano.
Re: Full disclosure - GPL exception stuff (licensing - yuck!)
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 11:23:02PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that you
> get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different from
> noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
> download that aren't under the same terms as the rest of the code.
Sure, I'd hope that the example of httpd binaries using the GPL+linking
exception licensed code helps people overcome that psychical barrier.
Here is a small howto for those playing at home that want to convince
themselves that the ASF has indeed been shipping binaries that use
GPL+linking exception licensed code without bad things happening.
You'll need OS X to play along, chosen because I know Cliff, Geir and
Leo use OS X notebooks, and I'm using httpd as an example because it is
ASF's most popular chunk of code written in C, afaik, and Apple uses it
as part of OS X Server, afair. You may get by gy just grepping the
binaries for the function symbols I listed, but you'd miss out on
looking at the disassembled functions in lovely powerpc assembler. ;)
Let's start with making sure that I've got the licenses right. Go to
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/compiler/ . You'll notice
that Apple describes all the cool stuff that comes with XCode 2.1 a bit
further down the site. Among the cool stuff is stuff licensed under "GPL
with linking exception", namely if you follow the link under:
Copyright (C) 1989, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This file is part of GCC.
GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later
version.
In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs,
and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming
from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions
do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of
the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine
executable.)
GCC is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with GCC; see the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free
Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA
02111-1307, USA.
"
at http://developer.apple.com/darwin/licenses/gpl-2-gcc-exception-3.txt
. That license covers
/usr/lib/gcc/darwin/3.3/crt2.o
which we will disassemble to see what is in there.
$ otool -tvV /usr/lib/gcc/darwin/3.3/crt2.o
[snip]
OK, there is a chunk of powerpc assembler code in a few functions.
The functions are
$ otool -tvV /usr/lib/gcc/darwin/3.3/crt2.o | grep :
/usr/lib/gcc/darwin/3.3/crt2.o:
_darwin_unwind_dyld_add_image_hook:
_darwin_unwind_dyld_remove_image_hook:
___darwin_gcc3_preregister_frame_info:
Cool. So we now know there is a bunch of functions in a gcc startup code
file on OS X, and we know their names, one of which seems to be very
gcc-specific, and we know that they are under GPL+linking exception.
Let's go and look at the source code, just to be sure, though.
Go to
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/config/darwin-crt2.c?rev=101314&view=markup
to look at the corresponding gcc source code to that object code file.
And blimey! There they all are, in source code form, all the functions
from above and the license even looks just the same. Okay, looks like it
is indeed code coming from gcc and indeed under GPL+linking exception.
Now, lets go and fetch us a httpd release from apache.org. Since we are
mean bastards trying to prove a point, we'll go and get it straight from
the tried and beaten apache.org server, to avoid "hey, it's a mirror, we
are not responsible for what they put up" excuses.
wget
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/macosx/httpd-2.0.50-powerpc-apple-darwin7.4.0.tar.gz
twiddle thumbs, tar zxvf it, cd into it.
$ file bindist/bin/httpd
bindist/bin/httpd: Mach-O executable ppc
cool! it's a binary and it's executable. Wonder what's in it? Let's
look.
$ otool -tvV bindist/bin/httpd | grep _darwin
_darwin_unwind_dyld_add_image_hook:
_darwin_unwind_dyld_remove_image_hook:
___darwin_gcc3_preregister_frame_info:
00025b0c addi r8,r8,___darwin_gcc3_preregister_frame_info
00025b54 addi r8,r8,___darwin_gcc3_preregister_frame_info
woah! cool! the GPL+linking exception licensed functions are right
there, even the gcc3 specific one, in full glory in the Apache Software
License Version 2.0 licensed binary. And it seems to be OK. In fact,it
seems to have been OK since
[TGZ] httpd-2.0.50-powerpc-apple-darwin7.4.0.tar.gz 02-Jul-2004
10:04 11M HTTP Server project
judging by http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/macosx/
I spare you the one-on-one comparison of the disassembly, as that'd be
pointless, as the ASF is using GPL+linking exception licensed code just
as the license allows it, and just like it is desired, and in particular
since the binary was compiled with a gcc < 3.3, and the code changes
slightly between the releases, and that old gcc version is not part of
XCode on Tiger. But a quick look at the dissembly and the C code in
gcc's CVS should be convincing enough that it is the same code.
A compiler that
imposes crappy restrictions on its output would be a useless toy. But
stuff that has to be woven into the compiled executables that get
distributed around has to be licensed somehow, to keep the lawyers
happy, and the FSF uses that "link your heart out, we don't care" clause
to do that, and make sure people can actually be safe distributing their
stuff under the licenses of their choice, rather than having to limit
themselves to whichever licenses FSF comes up with. They are pretty
pragmatic, when it comes to making sure they end up advancing free
software.
The clever audience taking notes at home will recognize the GPL+linking
exception style of licenses as being just the kind of license GNU
Classpath is distributed under.
> As far as I'm concerned, though, I'd vote for practicality - I don't
> care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary code
> to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
> restrictions that that entails.
Same here. So, I hope this provides enough of a reason for the
GPL+linking exception style of licenses to be officially blessed, so
that we can get that code in here, finally. ;)
cheers,
dalibor topic
> --
> David N. Welton
> - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
>
> Linux, Open Source Consulting
> - http://www.dedasys.com/
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Dalibor,
This kind of legal gymnastics is exactly why people prefer not to deal
with GPL. One is never sure which loophole will be used to shutdown a
project or stop a binary distribution. A quick resolution *IF* we see
a problem would be to make the HTTPD project stop doing binary
distributions. So you are just reducing choice. Am actually glad that
HTTPD is not using any other code under GPL+Exception other than the
GCC bits in the distribution so we don't have to worry about the
effects on a source distrubution. This will definitely *NOT* be the
case if a large body of code such as Classpath is part of the project.
Personally, i think now i am more convinced that Apache should not
take that risk till GPLv3 comes out and out LGPL stuff works out.
-- dims
On 12/4/05, Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:52:32PM -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> >
> > Conclusion being: if it's the merely legality that concerns ASF,
> > then they should already be happy and this whole problem and
> > discussion can go away (wouldn't that be nice :-)
>
> Thanks for summing it up so nicely, Archie ;)
>
> With the legality argument out of the way, someone should make
> sure that the board ratifies the existing practice of Apache projects
> shipping GPL+linking exception code. I believe I've provided the
> people who care about making the use of GNU Classpath's code
> possible with the requisite means to prove the legality of the
> license type decisively, and I assume this will be sufficient for the
> approval of the license on GNU Classpath as well. It is undeniable
> that ASF has been shipping all that code for years without any harm,
> so that should put an end to very vague doubts about the
> legality of the GPL+licensing exception construct.
>
> Unless there are any objections, and noone else comes forth,
> I'll sum up the discussion and make sure that Cliff brings it before
> license-discuss.
>
> I could also make a flash demo showing how to prove that the Apache
> Software Foundation is indeed shipping GPL+linking exception licensed
> bits in there, if that would help cut any armchair lawyering short.
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 05:59:53AM -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:53:08PM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:52:32PM -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> > > Conclusion being: if it's the merely legality that concerns ASF,
> > > then they should already be happy and this whole problem and
> > > discussion can go away (wouldn't that be nice :-)
> >
> > Thanks for summing it up so nicely, Archie ;)
> >
> > With the legality argument out of the way, someone should make
> > sure that the board ratifies the existing practice of Apache projects
> > shipping GPL+linking exception code.
>
> *binaries*. AFAIK apache isn't shipping GPL+exception *code*.
>
> Hmpf. I think Cliff as VP legal can just go out and say just that. Its
> so obvious it hurts.
>
> > I believe I've provided the
> > people who care about making the use of GNU Classpath's code
> > possible with the requisite means to prove the legality of the
> > license type decisively, and I assume this will be sufficient for the
> > approval of the license on GNU Classpath as well. It is undeniable
> > that ASF has been shipping all that code for years without any harm,
> > so that should put an end to very vague doubts about the
> > legality of the GPL+licensing exception construct.
> >
> > Unless there are any objections, and noone else comes forth,
> > I'll sum up the discussion
>
> always good.
>
OK, let me try.
Storm in a glass of water. ;)
It doesn't make sense to push it, as you point out, and becomes clear
after some sleep even to me, ;) that it'd only allow us to use binaries,
rather than to tasty things with the source. In the best case.
Doing tasty things with source beats wrestling with unwieldy binaries
all the time. ;)
So ... my sincere apologies to those who felt irritated by the mental
excercises. I'd like to see this project avoid the historical mistakes
I've seen others in this field make, but I realize that this list is not
the place for subversive talk and hacking of licenses, and that license
and community hacking in particular does not seem to be the Apache way
of doing things.
With those parting words to that quarterly license/community hacking
discussion, it's back to real work, i.e. code. Thanks to those that
participated in the brief brainstorming, now let's go back to the
regular programme, and see if we can make the things on Geir's roadmap
actually happen. ;)
love, peace and harmony,
dalibor topic
> > and make sure that Cliff brings it before license-discuss.
>
> Can't you do that yourself?
>
> (...)
>
> Establishing that it is perfectly legal to combine code licensed under
> the Apache License with binaries licensed under the GPL+Exception seems
> like a good thing and an actionable item.
>
> Establishing that it is perfectly legal to combine code licensed under
> the Apache License with java bytecode licensed under the GPL+Classpath
> Exception seems like a good thing and an actionable item.
>
> Establishing that it is perfectly legal to combine code licensed under
> the Apache License with source code licensed under the GPL+Exception seems
> like a good thing and an actionable item.
>
> Establishing that it is perfectly legal to combine code licensed under
> the Apache License with source code licensed under the GPL+Classpath
> Exception seems like a good thing and an actionable item.
>
> Establishing that the above items are both legal and acceptable practice
> for ASF projects seems like a good thing and an actionable items.
>
> I think the above bits might not all be exactly the same thing. The first
> two seem trivial, the third and fourth seem less trivial (based on the
> arguments presented so far), whereas the fifth as applied to the third
> and fourth is the "biggie" (and the one I've been looking at).
>
> I will further note there is currently a kind of "licensing bridge" in
> place between the Apache source code and everything licensed under the GPL
> (with exception or not) which is part of the C compiler or associated
> standard library. This bridge is formed by the C language specification
> and the C standard library specification.
>
> The analogy of the C lang spec is the JVM spec and the anology of the
> C stdlib spec is the Java TCK. Gaaah...
>
> (...)
>
> In other words
>
> "Establishing that it is acceptable practice for code in ASF projects to
> have optional dependencies on source code and/or binaries licensed under
> the GPL+Exception."
>
> "Establishing that it is acceptable practice for code in ASF projects to
> have non-optional dependencies on source code and/or binaries licensed under
> the GPL+Classpath Exception."
>
> The above two items seem like they are considerably less trivial and less
> easily actionable.
>
> - LSD
>
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:53:08PM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:52:32PM -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> > Conclusion being: if it's the merely legality that concerns ASF,
> > then they should already be happy and this whole problem and
> > discussion can go away (wouldn't that be nice :-)
>
> Thanks for summing it up so nicely, Archie ;)
>
> With the legality argument out of the way, someone should make
> sure that the board ratifies the existing practice of Apache projects
> shipping GPL+linking exception code.
*binaries*. AFAIK apache isn't shipping GPL+exception *code*.
Hmpf. I think Cliff as VP legal can just go out and say just that. Its
so obvious it hurts.
> I believe I've provided the
> people who care about making the use of GNU Classpath's code
> possible with the requisite means to prove the legality of the
> license type decisively, and I assume this will be sufficient for the
> approval of the license on GNU Classpath as well. It is undeniable
> that ASF has been shipping all that code for years without any harm,
> so that should put an end to very vague doubts about the
> legality of the GPL+licensing exception construct.
>
> Unless there are any objections, and noone else comes forth,
> I'll sum up the discussion
always good.
> and make sure that Cliff brings it before license-discuss.
Can't you do that yourself?
(...)
Establishing that it is perfectly legal to combine code licensed under
the Apache License with binaries licensed under the GPL+Exception seems
like a good thing and an actionable item.
Establishing that it is perfectly legal to combine code licensed under
the Apache License with java bytecode licensed under the GPL+Classpath
Exception seems like a good thing and an actionable item.
Establishing that it is perfectly legal to combine code licensed under
the Apache License with source code licensed under the GPL+Exception seems
like a good thing and an actionable item.
Establishing that it is perfectly legal to combine code licensed under
the Apache License with source code licensed under the GPL+Classpath
Exception seems like a good thing and an actionable item.
Establishing that the above items are both legal and acceptable practice
for ASF projects seems like a good thing and an actionable items.
I think the above bits might not all be exactly the same thing. The first
two seem trivial, the third and fourth seem less trivial (based on the
arguments presented so far), whereas the fifth as applied to the third
and fourth is the "biggie" (and the one I've been looking at).
I will further note there is currently a kind of "licensing bridge" in
place between the Apache source code and everything licensed under the GPL
(with exception or not) which is part of the C compiler or associated
standard library. This bridge is formed by the C language specification
and the C standard library specification.
The analogy of the C lang spec is the JVM spec and the anology of the
C stdlib spec is the Java TCK. Gaaah...
(...)
In other words
"Establishing that it is acceptable practice for code in ASF projects to
have optional dependencies on source code and/or binaries licensed under
the GPL+Exception."
"Establishing that it is acceptable practice for code in ASF projects to
have non-optional dependencies on source code and/or binaries licensed under
the GPL+Classpath Exception."
The above two items seem like they are considerably less trivial and less
easily actionable.
- LSD
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:52:32PM -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>
> Conclusion being: if it's the merely legality that concerns ASF,
> then they should already be happy and this whole problem and
> discussion can go away (wouldn't that be nice :-)
Thanks for summing it up so nicely, Archie ;)
With the legality argument out of the way, someone should make
sure that the board ratifies the existing practice of Apache projects
shipping GPL+linking exception code. I believe I've provided the
people who care about making the use of GNU Classpath's code
possible with the requisite means to prove the legality of the
license type decisively, and I assume this will be sufficient for the
approval of the license on GNU Classpath as well. It is undeniable
that ASF has been shipping all that code for years without any harm,
so that should put an end to very vague doubts about the
legality of the GPL+licensing exception construct.
Unless there are any objections, and noone else comes forth,
I'll sum up the discussion and make sure that Cliff brings it before
license-discuss.
I could also make a flash demo showing how to prove that the Apache
Software Foundation is indeed shipping GPL+linking exception licensed
bits in there, if that would help cut any armchair lawyering short.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still
is ;)
Posted by Anthony Green <gr...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 11:53 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> for example, there is work done already on XSLTC
> (http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/xsltc_usage.html) in Xalan. I'd like to
> be able to make *my* JRE distribution use this by default. To save
> space, i *don't* want to use the gnu xml stuff. why should i have to
> distribute that? see my point?
I don't believe there's anything preventing you from doing that today.
Fedora Core ships GNU Classpath (via libgcj) as well as Apache XML code.
Users can choose to use the Apache code instead of the GNU with a
command line option if they like.
AG
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Anthony,
for example, there is work done already on XSLTC
(http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/xsltc_usage.html) in Xalan. I'd like to
be able to make *my* JRE distribution use this by default. To save
space, i *don't* want to use the gnu xml stuff. why should i have to
distribute that? see my point?
thanks,
dims
On 12/5/05, Anthony Green <gr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 00:13 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > 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).
>
> This is true. My feeling about this, as it relates to the core class
> libraries, is that this is no place for proprietary innovation. Let
> people innovate around JIT, GC or other technology, but we're all better
> off collaborating on a first class J2SE-certifiable core class library
> collection.
>
> The proprietary Java vendors seem to agree on this point since, as far
> as I can tell, they all use the same class libraries as well.
>
> AG
>
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Harmony project roadmap
Posted by Enrico Migliore <en...@fatti.com>.
Hi Geir
> I think we're all creating it here :)
>
> In terms of roadmap, I'd like to see :
>
> 1) Continue to build on the IBM contribution for classlibraries
>
> 2) Ensure our VM efforts work with IBMs contribution
>
> 3) See if we can find a common VM/classlib interface for all
> projects, both here and elsewhere, to use for interop
>
> 4) Start work on our infrastructure such as the build structure, and
> the automated testing structure
>
>
ok
>
> Specifically, are you looking for something to do ?
>
Yes, actually I'm waiting for David Tanzer to upload to the JCHEVM
modified source tree,
in order for me to compile it with the GCC tool chain on Windows.
ciao,
Enrico
Re: Harmony project roadmap
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
I think we're all creating it here :)
In terms of roadmap, I'd like to see :
1) Continue to build on the IBM contribution for classlibraries
2) Ensure our VM efforts work with IBMs contribution
3) See if we can find a common VM/classlib interface for all
projects, both here and elsewhere, to use for interop
4) Start work on our infrastructure such as the build structure, and
the automated testing structure
Specifically, are you looking for something to do ?
Here's a quick list off the top of my head :
1) Tools : How about demonstrating how the IBM contribution can
self-host the eclipse compiler? IOW, do 'javac' for us? We need all
the other tools as well.
2) get JCHEVM and bootVM to work with the IBM contribution
3) Build : we'd like to have a sane build process, being able to kick
off from the top level and yet have each of the sublevels (enhanced/
classlib, enhanced/vm, enhanced/tools) have independent builds and
artifacts.
4) Build : how about working through some of the build issues
discussed related to ant vs make vs ....
5) See what it takes to get Kaffe et al to work with the IBM
contribution so we don't have to use IBMs J9 binary for testing if we
don't want to
let us know when you're done :) We'll have more!
geir
On Dec 5, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Enrico Migliore wrote:
> Hi Geir,
>
> when will the project's roadmap be available?
>
> Enrico
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Harmony project roadmap
Posted by Enrico Migliore <en...@fatti.com>.
Hi Geir,
when will the project's roadmap be available?
Enrico
Re: Back on your hands!
Posted by Phillip Rhodes <mi...@cpphacker.co.uk>.
Tim Ellison wrote:
> I'd prefer harmony-legal@ for the same reason as Leo (I can't read
> legal-discuss either). Better still, legal-discuss-public@
>
+1 for harmony-legal@
It seems inevitable that we are going to wind up having at
least some licensing and legal related issues, but I
personally feel that stuff should be kept out in the
open, not hidden away on a committers only list. But it's
also mostly just noise on this list, so yeah, I think
harmony-legal@ would be a great idea.
TTYL,
Phil
--
North Carolina - First In Freedom
Free America - Vote Libertarian
www.lp.org
Re: Back on your hands!
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
I'd prefer harmony-legal@ for the same reason as Leo (I can't read
legal-discuss either). Better still, legal-discuss-public@
Hopefully it will put a stop to those pesky code discussion
interruptions ;-)
Regards,
Tim
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:49:24AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>So... can we consider this topic done (with the exception of dalibar
>>getting the last word in response to my last post), at least from the
>>POV of trying to make progress on it here on the Harmony list, and
>>move it over to legal-discuss? This is a committer-only list, so not
>>everyone can participate, but if we promise to bring the results
>>back, will that work?
>
>
> I'm fine with moving discussion elsewhere. But I'm not on legal-discuss
> precisely because its committer-only.
>
>
>>If not, shall we start harmony-legal@ list?
>
>
> That might make sense.
>
> LSD
>
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: Back on your hands!
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:49:24AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> So... can we consider this topic done (with the exception of dalibar
> getting the last word in response to my last post), at least from the
> POV of trying to make progress on it here on the Harmony list, and
> move it over to legal-discuss? This is a committer-only list, so not
> everyone can participate, but if we promise to bring the results
> back, will that work?
I'm fine with moving discussion elsewhere. But I'm not on legal-discuss
precisely because its committer-only.
> If not, shall we start harmony-legal@ list?
That might make sense.
LSD
Re: Back on your hands! (Was Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;))
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:49:24AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Ok. So there's this joke I like...
>
> A guy dies and goes to hell. A daemon ;) meets him at the door, and
> tells him that he gets to choose his eternal punishment. They go to
> a large room where people are hanging by their hands into a pool of
> lava. They all are in agony and pain. They guys says "Pass!". The
> go to the second room. Here, people are chained to big rocks, and
> wave after wave of cold saltwater lash into them minute after
> minute. Clearly they are suffering too.
>
> The man wants to see the third room. In it, people are standing up
> to their necks in a big pool of manure, drinking coffee. The man
> thinks "hey, that's not so bad, compared to what I saw" so he grabs a
> coffee cup, jumps in and has his coffee. (The coffee isn't bad, either.)
>
> Fifteen minutes later, the overseer gets up from his coffee, comes to
> the edge of the pool, and says
>
> "Ok everyone. Coffee break is over. Back on your hands!"
>
>
+1 ;)
> So... can we consider this topic done (with the exception of dalibar
> getting the last word in response to my last post), at least from the
> POV of trying to make progress on it here on the Harmony list, and
> move it over to legal-discuss? This is a committer-only list, so not
> everyone can participate, but if we promise to bring the results
> back, will that work?
Nah, not necessary. I don't think anymore it would get us what we need,
so no need to create confusion amongst ourselves.
>
> If not, shall we start harmony-legal@ list?
>
I doubt it is very necessary either, as the issue is not a legal one. In
essence, people from outside the ASF may ocassionally come with ideas how to
"subvert the system", and those ideas may even look nice, in theory, but they
will not work in the practice, since the core membership is very
conservative, and will need time to find out how it can best profit
from which forms of interaction with other communities. From my
experience so far, pushing the membership via social hacks seems to be
counterproductive. Thanks to those who participated in those social
experiments. I hope I haven't annoyed people too much with that.
At the end of the day, the current situation is not really a problem,
for a variety of reasons.
A "100% ASLv2 only" Apache Harmony project is able to differentiate itself
towards potential, *PL(+*)-wary donors as a nice, potentially more proprietary
vendor friendly alternative, and so far this has been very successful, and
that was one of the things I envisioned for this project, allowing proprietary
runtime vendors to go the safe route via ASF.
As long as there are contributors we can lure out of the reserve, into
contributing their crown jewels, by using a "100% ASLv2 pure" goal, I think
it will be worth it. It would be great if Apache Harmony succeeds in creating a
modular, pluggable runtime, within the next 3-5 years, which may happen with the
participation of some of the proprietary runtime vendors, and their
research teams.
One thing I keep ocassionally forgetting in my attempts to find hacks to merge all
communities together, is that a multi-pronged approach is going to be more
successfull in appealing to different "segments of the market", and
merging things too early would eliminate the advantage of being able to
appeal to initially different audiences.
cheers,
dalibor topic
> geir
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:52:32PM -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> >>Conclusion being: if it's the merely legality that concerns ASF,
> >>then they should already be happy and this whole problem and
> >>discussion can go away (wouldn't that be nice :-)
> >
> >Yes, that'd be real nice! But mere legality isn't the only thing
> >that concerns the ASF. Its probably also perfectly legal to write
> >code that only compiles with MS Visual Studio .Net 2008 Vista
> >Edition and release it under the Apache License. However, if an
> >ASF project were to do that, it'd still be considered a problem.
> >
> >"So what are all the other concerns?"
> >
> >There is no exhaustive list. Cliff is working on documenting this
> >stuff.
> >
> >Things like "users can go and use our stuff without worrying about
> >'virality'", "the legal end results are similar to what our users
> >expect", and more.
> >
> >- Leo
> >
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
Back on your hands! (Was Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;))
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
Ok. So there's this joke I like...
A guy dies and goes to hell. A daemon ;) meets him at the door, and
tells him that he gets to choose his eternal punishment. They go to
a large room where people are hanging by their hands into a pool of
lava. They all are in agony and pain. They guys says "Pass!". The
go to the second room. Here, people are chained to big rocks, and
wave after wave of cold saltwater lash into them minute after
minute. Clearly they are suffering too.
The man wants to see the third room. In it, people are standing up
to their necks in a big pool of manure, drinking coffee. The man
thinks "hey, that's not so bad, compared to what I saw" so he grabs a
coffee cup, jumps in and has his coffee. (The coffee isn't bad, either.)
Fifteen minutes later, the overseer gets up from his coffee, comes to
the edge of the pool, and says
"Ok everyone. Coffee break is over. Back on your hands!"
So... can we consider this topic done (with the exception of dalibar
getting the last word in response to my last post), at least from the
POV of trying to make progress on it here on the Harmony list, and
move it over to legal-discuss? This is a committer-only list, so not
everyone can participate, but if we promise to bring the results
back, will that work?
If not, shall we start harmony-legal@ list?
geir
On Dec 5, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:52:32PM -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>> Conclusion being: if it's the merely legality that concerns ASF,
>> then they should already be happy and this whole problem and
>> discussion can go away (wouldn't that be nice :-)
>
> Yes, that'd be real nice! But mere legality isn't the only thing
> that concerns the ASF. Its probably also perfectly legal to write
> code that only compiles with MS Visual Studio .Net 2008 Vista
> Edition and release it under the Apache License. However, if an
> ASF project were to do that, it'd still be considered a problem.
>
> "So what are all the other concerns?"
>
> There is no exhaustive list. Cliff is working on documenting this
> stuff.
>
> Things like "users can go and use our stuff without worrying about
> 'virality'", "the legal end results are similar to what our users
> expect", and more.
>
> - Leo
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:52:32PM -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Conclusion being: if it's the merely legality that concerns ASF,
> then they should already be happy and this whole problem and
> discussion can go away (wouldn't that be nice :-)
Yes, that'd be real nice! But mere legality isn't the only thing
that concerns the ASF. Its probably also perfectly legal to write
code that only compiles with MS Visual Studio .Net 2008 Vista
Edition and release it under the Apache License. However, if an
ASF project were to do that, it'd still be considered a problem.
"So what are all the other concerns?"
There is no exhaustive list. Cliff is working on documenting this
stuff.
Things like "users can go and use our stuff without worrying about
'virality'", "the legal end results are similar to what our users
expect", and more.
- Leo
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Geir.
On 12/4/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 06:33:13PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:23 PM, David N. Welton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that
> >>> you
> >>> get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different
> >>> from
> >>> noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
> >>> download that aren't under the same terms as the rest of the code.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think a different way to say it, one that is clearer for my
> >> thinking, is that there is no dependence in the code, or on having to
> >> use GCC - a user can take the source and recompile with some other
> >> compiler to get working software.
> >>
> >
> > Sure, but the ASF has chosen to ship software using GPL+linking
> > exception
> > licensed code, and has beeing doing so for years, as I have shown,
> > without any
> > negative results. The ASF has a choice not to ship the binaries, or to
> > ship them built with a different compiler, or to write their own
> > compiler,
> > but it chose not to, because obviously GPL+linking exception is
> > good enough
> > for what the ASF (and any $PROPRIETARY_SOFTWARE_VENDOR using gcc)
> > does, or
> > it would not be doing it.
> >
> > So, could the board please ratify the existing, and well-working
> > practice of
> > the ASF shipping code using GPL+linking exception licensed code as
> > obviosly, trivially OK? That should not be too hard to get done
> > quickly.
> > Pragmatism over ideology, and all that. That's why we are here, right?
>
> Let me start by noting (hopefully unnecessarily at this point) that
> I'm very interested in solving the licensing issues.
>
> 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.
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still
is ;)
Posted by Archie Cobbs <ar...@dellroad.org>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> To restate the obvious, If i choose to, i can use another compiler
> (say VC++ on Windows -
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/win_compiling.html) and not care
> about GCC's GPL+Exception.
>
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
I think you're missing Anthony's point. He's merely pointing out
that there is no *legal* difference between linking with a tiny
bit of GCC code vs. a huge piece of classlib code. Of course "legal"
reality is often different from "rational" reality (unfortunately
it's the "legal" reality that matters here).
Whether you could have used a different compiler is also besides
the (Anthony's) point, which is simply: ASF is shipping bundled
code licensed under GPL+E today (and has for a long time). The
other details are not legally relevant. It's certainly fair to
discuss them, but that's a separate issue from the one that
started this thread.
Conclusion being: if it's the merely legality that concerns ASF,
then they should already be happy and this whole problem and
discussion can go away (wouldn't that be nice :-)
-Archie
__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Anthony,
To restate the obvious, If i choose to, i can use another compiler
(say VC++ on Windows -
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/win_compiling.html) and not care
about GCC's GPL+Exception.
Let's see if you guys have enough pull with FSF to make at least GPL
v3 (http://gplv3.fsf.org/process-definition) compatible with ASL 2.0
as-is. If it's not, a temporary bridge is of no use. no?
More seriously, if there is a legal concern about Apache's use of GCC
stuff, it should come through the right channels.
-- dims
On 12/4/05, Anthony Green <gr...@redhat.com> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> AG
>
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Rodrigo Kumpera <ku...@gmail.com>.
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 <da...@gmail.com> 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 <ro...@kaffe.org> 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
> > > geir@optonline.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> > > geirm@apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still
is ;)
Posted by Anthony Green <gr...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 00:13 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> 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).
This is true. My feeling about this, as it relates to the core class
libraries, is that this is no place for proprietary innovation. Let
people innovate around JIT, GC or other technology, but we're all better
off collaborating on a first class J2SE-certifiable core class library
collection.
The proprietary Java vendors seem to agree on this point since, as far
as I can tell, they all use the same class libraries as well.
AG
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
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 <ro...@kaffe.org> 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
> > geir@optonline.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> > geirm@apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still
is ;)
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> No longer necessary. Neither would it be relevant to this project, nor
>> would it be really interesting, as at the core, the licensing stuff is
>> only useful for obviously trivial setups, and it won't get us what we
>> need.
>
>
> ?
>
See Leo's mail on the differences between ratification of trivial and
non-trivial licensing setups. That made me realize that what's working
for httpd would be hard through to push through as equivalent for this
project, and would not entail the benefits I'd like, i.e. working with
actual source code.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 5, 2005, at 11:22 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
>> This is much different than having an explicit hard dependency on a
>> GPL+Exception codebase here, if our VMs would have
>>
>> import org.gnu.classpath.Foo
>>
>> or whatever.
>
> I believe I see your point. I don't think it would be necessary for
> the
> VMs to do that, per se, if we had an interface, which we could all
> share/reimplement under a license of their choice. And here we are
> back at real, technical issues. ;)
You are now going to subvert a legal thread on a technical list to a
technical issue? :)
>
> Maybe we had some miscommunication why you were so motivated on
> getting
> an interface for class libraries hammered out. My plan was to go ahead
> and just merge everything out there into a big coherent whole, while
> letting people mix and match what they want on their own branches/
> forks,
> so I was pretty puzzled by the insistance to have an interface for the
> class library first.
Yeah, because you're the Borg of the free java world :)
> That's in general, the most boring area of the
> whole runtime, so I don't think I was alone wondering what that was
> good for, if we were going to merge everything together anyway in the
> end ;)
>
> Now I see how yet another VM interface would help make people who have
> trouble with some licenses feel more comfortable, and isolated from
> them.
> That makes a lot more sense. If the motivation has been presented that
> way, I must have missed it, unfortunately, so I am sorry for that. ;(
I seem to have a knack for miscommunicating things. Can you imagine
how bad this would be if English wasn't my first language?
>
> In a way, it's pretty funny how this list gets regularly outbursts of
> miscommunication, all around. As I told people last time around this
> happened, maybe the project members need to talk more to each other
> off
> list, as my impression is that the little interruptions would not
> happen if people used the "unofficial" communication channels more, to
> evaluate and elaborate on what they are doing and planning to do. That
> would help cut down on the amount of "WTF???" posts.
>
Maybe, but the problem is that doesn't scale. (I wont' say anything
about transparency as the purpose is for clarity, which I do think
that 1:1 conversations help...) Anyone who has stayed with the
thread this long and had the same confusion may also now understand.
> Guilty as charged, though. ;(
>
>>
>> I admire (or would if I had some sleep) your zeal in trying to use
>> this as an example to solve the problem, but I think you're tilting
>> at the wrong windmill here.
>
> OK. Have some rest. I don't really think it is an actual problem any
> more. Things are going OK as they are, afaict.
>
>>
>> Either way, can we agree that we've made the Harmony community aware
>> of this, and bring over to the ASF legal discussion lists rather than
>> here?
>
> No longer necessary. Neither would it be relevant to this project, nor
> would it be really interesting, as at the core, the licensing stuff is
> only useful for obviously trivial setups, and it won't get us what we
> need.
?
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:41:10AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >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:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>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?
>
> You are missing my point completely. This isn't about illegality as
> in "We are going to get sued" or "the police are going to come" but
> about the rights, freedoms and expectations of our end users.
>
Agreed ;)
> When you get the httpd binary, you just use it. You run it. The
> fact that there's GPL-ed code in there is *utterly irrelevant*
> because there is no hard source dependency to which you as the user
> are somehow bound. By "bound", I mean have to have it's license
> effect you if you make some modification to httpd. So in this
> sense, yes, it's like the OS.
>
Yup.
> When you work with the source of httpd, the creative work we are
> licensing to to the user for them to do with as they may, then
> *poof*! the GPL+Exception code simply disappears - it's not an issue
> for the user to deal with because it was only added as a harmless
> side effect of using one specific tool. It's not much different than
> having proprietary code from a commercial installer being part of an
> Apache Licensed distro - not illegal, and nothing the user has to
> deal with when considering a modified or derivative work.
>
Spot on.
> This is much different than having an explicit hard dependency on a
> GPL+Exception codebase here, if our VMs would have
>
> import org.gnu.classpath.Foo
>
> or whatever.
I believe I see your point. I don't think it would be necessary for the
VMs to do that, per se, if we had an interface, which we could all
share/reimplement under a license of their choice. And here we are
back at real, technical issues. ;)
Maybe we had some miscommunication why you were so motivated on getting
an interface for class libraries hammered out. My plan was to go ahead
and just merge everything out there into a big coherent whole, while
letting people mix and match what they want on their own branches/forks,
so I was pretty puzzled by the insistance to have an interface for the
class library first. That's in general, the most boring area of the
whole runtime, so I don't think I was alone wondering what that was
good for, if we were going to merge everything together anyway in the
end ;)
Now I see how yet another VM interface would help make people who have
trouble with some licenses feel more comfortable, and isolated from them.
That makes a lot more sense. If the motivation has been presented that
way, I must have missed it, unfortunately, so I am sorry for that. ;(
In a way, it's pretty funny how this list gets regularly outbursts of
miscommunication, all around. As I told people last time around this
happened, maybe the project members need to talk more to each other off
list, as my impression is that the little interruptions would not
happen if people used the "unofficial" communication channels more, to
evaluate and elaborate on what they are doing and planning to do. That
would help cut down on the amount of "WTF???" posts.
Guilty as charged, though. ;(
>
> I admire (or would if I had some sleep) your zeal in trying to use
> this as an example to solve the problem, but I think you're tilting
> at the wrong windmill here.
OK. Have some rest. I don't really think it is an actual problem any
more. Things are going OK as they are, afaict.
>
> Either way, can we agree that we've made the Harmony community aware
> of this, and bring over to the ASF legal discussion lists rather than
> here?
No longer necessary. Neither would it be relevant to this project, nor
would it be really interesting, as at the core, the licensing stuff is
only useful for obviously trivial setups, and it won't get us what we
need.
cheers,
dalibor topic
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
Hi Vic,
As usual, you ignore what is written in order to present material
that is generally deemed incorrect or irrational.
Note that what I wrote was :
> When you get the httpd binary, you just use it. You run it. The
> fact that there's GPL-ed code in there is *utterly irrelevant*
> because there is no hard source dependency to which you as the user
> are somehow bound. By "bound", I mean have to have it's license
> effect you if you make some modification to httpd. So in this
> sense, yes, it's like the OS.
If you'd like to explain how it's relevant that binary code under the
GPL+Exception that gets included by gcc in the httpd binary for OSX
creates some kind of binding source dependency for the user, please
feel free.
If you wish to use this list for personal attacks and slander, please
take it elsewhere.
geir
On Dec 5, 2005, at 8:47 AM, netsql wrote:
> Well maybe for you ethics.
>
> .V
>
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The fact
>> that there's GPL-ed code in there is *utterly irrelevant* ...
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still
is ;)
Posted by netsql <ne...@pointcast.com>.
Well maybe for you ethics.
.V
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
The fact
> that there's GPL-ed code in there is *utterly irrelevant* ...
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 4, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
[SNIP]
> 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:
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
You are missing my point completely. This isn't about illegality as
in "We are going to get sued" or "the police are going to come" but
about the rights, freedoms and expectations of our end users.
When you get the httpd binary, you just use it. You run it. The
fact that there's GPL-ed code in there is *utterly irrelevant*
because there is no hard source dependency to which you as the user
are somehow bound. By "bound", I mean have to have it's license
effect you if you make some modification to httpd. So in this
sense, yes, it's like the OS.
When you work with the source of httpd, the creative work we are
licensing to to the user for them to do with as they may, then
*poof*! the GPL+Exception code simply disappears - it's not an issue
for the user to deal with because it was only added as a harmless
side effect of using one specific tool. It's not much different than
having proprietary code from a commercial installer being part of an
Apache Licensed distro - not illegal, and nothing the user has to
deal with when considering a modified or derivative work.
This is much different than having an explicit hard dependency on a
GPL+Exception codebase here, if our VMs would have
import org.gnu.classpath.Foo
or whatever.
I admire (or would if I had some sleep) your zeal in trying to use
this as an example to solve the problem, but I think you're tilting
at the wrong windmill here.
Either way, can we agree that we've made the Harmony community aware
of this, and bring over to the ASF legal discussion lists rather than
here?
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
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
> geir@optonline.net
>
>
>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
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.
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.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geir@optonline.net
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still
is ;)
Posted by Anthony Green <gr...@redhat.com>.
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.
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.
AG
Re: ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 4, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 06:33:13PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:23 PM, David N. Welton wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that
>>> you
>>> get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different
>>> from
>>> noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
>>> download that aren't under the same terms as the rest of the code.
>>>
>>
>> I think a different way to say it, one that is clearer for my
>> thinking, is that there is no dependence in the code, or on having to
>> use GCC - a user can take the source and recompile with some other
>> compiler to get working software.
>>
>
> Sure, but the ASF has chosen to ship software using GPL+linking
> exception
> licensed code, and has beeing doing so for years, as I have shown,
> without any
> negative results. The ASF has a choice not to ship the binaries, or to
> ship them built with a different compiler, or to write their own
> compiler,
> but it chose not to, because obviously GPL+linking exception is
> good enough
> for what the ASF (and any $PROPRIETARY_SOFTWARE_VENDOR using gcc)
> does, or
> it would not be doing it.
>
> So, could the board please ratify the existing, and well-working
> practice of
> the ASF shipping code using GPL+linking exception licensed code as
> obviosly, trivially OK? That should not be too hard to get done
> quickly.
> Pragmatism over ideology, and all that. That's why we are here, right?
Let me start by noting (hopefully unnecessarily at this point) that
I'm very interested in solving the licensing issues.
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.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
ASF has been shipping GPL exception stuff for years and still is ;)
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 06:33:13PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:23 PM, David N. Welton wrote:
>
> >Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that
> >you
> >get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different
> >from
> > noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
> >download that aren't under the same terms as the rest of the code.
> >
>
> I think a different way to say it, one that is clearer for my
> thinking, is that there is no dependence in the code, or on having to
> use GCC - a user can take the source and recompile with some other
> compiler to get working software.
>
Sure, but the ASF has chosen to ship software using GPL+linking exception
licensed code, and has beeing doing so for years, as I have shown, without any
negative results. The ASF has a choice not to ship the binaries, or to
ship them built with a different compiler, or to write their own compiler,
but it chose not to, because obviously GPL+linking exception is good enough
for what the ASF (and any $PROPRIETARY_SOFTWARE_VENDOR using gcc) does, or
it would not be doing it.
So, could the board please ratify the existing, and well-working practice of
the ASF shipping code using GPL+linking exception licensed code as
obviosly, trivially OK? That should not be too hard to get done quickly.
Pragmatism over ideology, and all that. That's why we are here, right?
cheers,
dalibor topic
> >As far as I'm concerned, though, I'd vote for practicality - I don't
> >care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary
> >code
> >to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
> >restrictions that that entails.
>
> Coming soon :)
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
Re: Full disclosure - GPL exception stuff (licensing - yuck!)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:23 PM, David N. Welton wrote:
> Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that
> you
> get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different
> from
> noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
> download that aren't under the same terms as the rest of the code.
>
I think a different way to say it, one that is clearer for my
thinking, is that there is no dependence in the code, or on having to
use GCC - a user can take the source and recompile with some other
compiler to get working software.
> As far as I'm concerned, though, I'd vote for practicality - I don't
> care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary
> code
> to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
> restrictions that that entails.
Coming soon :)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Full disclosure - GPL exception stuff (licensing - yuck!)
Posted by "David N. Welton" <da...@dedasys.com>.
Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that you
get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different from
noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
download that aren't under the same terms as the rest of the code.
As far as I'm concerned, though, I'd vote for practicality - I don't
care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary code
to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
restrictions that that entails.
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 02:19:15PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> >
> >I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking
> >exception
> >as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made
> >using gcc that are
> >distributed from Apache.org anyway, and would allow us to ship gcc-
> >compiled
> >binaries of Harmony. Someone tell the httpd guys to raise it at
> >legal-discuss.
> >
>
>
> Why do you say that? Before we go down a rathole discussing this,
> what do you mean?
C compilers in general have a small bit of common startup code used
by all applications compiled alike. When you compile
int main() {
printf("Hello world\n");
return 0;
}
with any compiler, there is a small amount of things that need to happen
before main is executed at all, and those things are usually the same
for any application, it's pretty generic startup code that ends up being
copied into each compiled executable by the C compiler.
With gcc, the startup code for darwin (OS X), can be found under
gcc/config/darwin-crt2.c for example. As you can see on the Apple site
for XCode 2.1, the license of the OS X gcc startup code is
GPL+linking exception. I've posted a link in a previous post in this
thread. As you can see in the file in gcc's source code, the license for
the darwin startup code is indeed the GPL with a special exception for
linking:
"
In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs,
and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming
from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions
do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of
the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine
executable.)
"
The exception is there by design, to make sure that people using gcc
to compile their code can distribute their binaries freely, without
FSF's gcc startup code's license imposing *any restriction* on their
license choice, even if FSF's startup code ends up being incorporated
in the compiled binary, which it usually does, as dumping the Apache
httpd OS X binaries and looking for OS X gcc startup code could show.
Under the assumption that some of the Apache httpd binaries
distributed from Apache.org were compiled with gcc, they would have to
use FSF's code licensed under GPL+linking exception as the embedded
startup code. That's perfectly fine, and precisely what the GPL+linking
exception is designed for, so pointing that out to whoever has
reservations regarding any use of code under GPL+linking exception might be
fruitful to get the board approval for that license type as well,
since (under the assumption that the ASF has shipped gcc compiled
binaries) using the GPL+linking exception licensed (startup) code has been
fine for as long as the ASF has shipped gcc compiled httpd binaries.
Once the GPL+linking exception type of licenses is deemed acceptable, we
could make sure that the text of the linking exception in GNU Classpath
matches Apache Harmony's needs as well as the text of the linking
exception used by gcc matches the needs of various operating system
vendors who use gcc as their preferred compiler toolchain of choice ;)
This is a potential hack to fasttrack the GPL+linking exception type of
licenses through the board, of course, since we'd be able to point to
httpd (or any other C project on Apache.org shipping gcc compiled
binaries) for a precedent of happy use of GPL+linking exception licensed
code.
cheers,
dalibor topic
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 3, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking
> exception
> as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made
> using gcc that are
> distributed from Apache.org anyway, and would allow us to ship gcc-
> compiled
> binaries of Harmony. Someone tell the httpd guys to raise it at
> legal-discuss.
>
Why do you say that? Before we go down a rathole discussing this,
what do you mean?
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:24:10PM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Anthony Green wrote:
>
> >But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this? AFAICT,
> >many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free
> >class library project.
>
> uh? nobody ever mentioned that harmony was about "a single free class
> library project".
Yeah. I'd expect Harmony to prefer to use ASF's JAXP code over GNU JAXP,
for example, Common-Regexp/ORO over GNU regex, and so on.
There are always going to be areas where it may make sense for Apache
Harmony to chose different components for their class library over
GNU Classpath's choice, and that's the idea, basically: being able to
pick and chose whatever suits oneself, while heading towards a full
1.5 implementation.
> In such an ecosystem, having Classpath licensed under LGPL would make it
> much easier for Harmony to start merging pieces.
Yup. I think the most important part for Harmony would be to be able to use
what's out there, and that requires policy decisions on Apache Harmony's/ASF's
side and/or licensing decisions on FSF's side. All of which take time, require
attention to detail, mutual understanding of the letter and spirit of licenses,
then feeding that to the ASF's lawyers, you name it.
I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking exception
as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made using gcc that are
distributed from Apache.org anyway, and would allow us to ship gcc-compiled
binaries of Harmony. Someone tell the httpd guys to raise it at legal-discuss.
> If not, we'll have to create yet another licensing bridge and it will
> take some more time, that's all.
+1.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Anthony Green wrote:
> But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this? AFAICT,
> many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free
> class library project.
uh? nobody ever mentioned that harmony was about "a single free class
library project".
I, personally, don't give a damn about that: the ASF will not dual
license its code under a *GPL license (also because it can't! not being
the copyright holder!) and the FSF will not dual license its code under
an apache license. Period. So, as much as I don't insult the GNU
Classpath project by asking them to dual-license under terms that go
against their nature, don't be surprised if people react defensively
when you ask such a thing here.
Apache Harmony is a project that aims about certifying a J2SE
implementation that is licensed (as a whole) under terms that are
considered acceptable by its community.
As I mentioned, LGPL licensing terms have never be considered
"acceptable", but this is scheduled to change in the near future.
Once this is changed, the GPL + Classpath exception will be next to be
considered.
Personally, I'm not advocating for Classpath to change their license:
I've stopped caring about those things. As I said, at times it's easier
to rewrite the code or to shop around for interested commercial entities
for donations.
As the guy who started the Gump runs against Kaffe, I am interested in
helping out all the efforts that gravitate around a free/open java
implementation.... but I have to do it in Apache (or we won't have
access to the TCK!) and therefore I have to play by the social rules
that exist here.
In such an ecosystem, having Classpath licensed under LGPL would make it
much easier for Harmony to start merging pieces.
If not, we'll have to create yet another licensing bridge and it will
take some more time, that's all.
--
Stefano.
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Anthony Green wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:47 -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
>>Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for
>>that to happen,
>>and get us rolling forward in that aspect as well.
>
>
> Rather than dual license the code, maybe switching to LGPL+exception
> would be better. The GNU FOO+exception licenses say that you can
> redistribute using the FOO license at will.
>
You maybe underestimate the amount of confusion at the ASF regarding the
precise effects of FSF's licenses[1] and how long it takes to get the
necessary consensus for legal things :)
Introducing yet another copyleft license may take a lot more time to run
through the ASF gremiums, in particular since the ASF is just about to
come up with rules to deal with copyleft code at all, nevermind coming
to terms with the LGPL.
> But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this? AFAICT,
> many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free
> class library project.
I don't see that as a real problem, as economics of maintaining a fork
would speak against it, and the only real way to be part of the game is
to collaborate.
Of course, Harmony could repeat the mistakes the Kaffe project made in
the late 90s, and be in a few years where Kaffe was a few years ago:
have a lot of neat, largely working code to show for some kinds of apps,
but everyone left and right outcollaborating it, and coming up with
better ways to do the same things. Been there, seen that, took the
eventually happily dormant project over, and switched it into highly
collaborative mode. One of the most requested features for Kaffe in the
past 6 months by developers and distributors alike, btw, was support for
using a preinstalled, pristine GNU Classpath (CVS head or release)
install out of the box, since it is moving faster than I can merge in
the improvements ... go figure.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] To come back to the great internal ASF confusion regarding the
GPL+linking exception (short: GPL+LE), looking the httpd binary
downloads, I'd guess that the ASF (and most mirrors) have been shipping
GCC compiled httpd binaries for a few years from ASF's servers[2], and
the native binaries necessarily must be linked to (almost) verbatim
copies of GPL+linking exception licensed crt code from FSF by the virtue
of being compiled by gcc. Which is obviously fine, because the
GPL+linking exception explicitely allows that. I assume an easy way to
get GPL+linking exception through the board would be to wave a 'hold on!
if we've been doing this for years, and it went fine as far as we can
tell, and the FSF agrees with it, too, well, duh, let's get on with it!'
flag and say that the ASF has been jhappilly shipping binaries directly
using GPL+LE licensed code for years, and to codify such use as
permissible in a policy. Someone should wave that flag at legal-discuss
before ApacheCon, so that the board can get that done quickly, and we
can finally move on without having to wait for the LGPL decision. If the
good old httpd project can use GPL+LE code, why shouldn't harmony?
[2] objdump is your friend. or otool, on os x. dump crt.o of respective
gcc toolchain, look for the symbol names there, dump the respective
apache licensed binary, grep for the symbols, compare the assembler
code, and keep in mind that gcc crt.o als evolves a bit between gcc
releases. I found it easy to find almost exact matches last time I
checked, but couldn't be bothered to track down the exact toolchain release.
The point is that the ASF may have been already shipping small bits and
pieces that are using GPL+linking exception licensed code for years,
perfectly in compliance with GPL+linking exception, the respective ASF
committees just need to wrap their heads around it, and figure out if
it's actually what they want or not. I'd say 'well, yeah, it's darn
obvious, GPL+linking exception works the same by design for any
$PROPRIETARY_SOFTWARE_VENDOR, so chances are it'll work just the same
way for us, too, just like it worked all those years before', but then I
can understand how confusing any document with the letters 'GPL' in it
can be to some people, and how much harder to explain to their lawyers
and managers.
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:11:22PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:47 -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >>
> >>Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for
> >>that to happen,
> >>and get us rolling forward in that aspect as well.
> >
> >Rather than dual license the code, maybe switching to LGPL+exception
> >would be better. The GNU FOO+exception licenses say that you can
> >redistribute using the FOO license at will.
> >
> >But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this?
> >AFAICT,
> >many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free
> >class library project.
>
> But others do, so if we can use both, we can give people the choice
> to work on what they want, and users to use what they want.
+1.
cheers,
dalibor topic
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:47 -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>
>> Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for
>> that to happen,
>> and get us rolling forward in that aspect as well.
>
> Rather than dual license the code, maybe switching to LGPL+exception
> would be better. The GNU FOO+exception licenses say that you can
> redistribute using the FOO license at will.
>
> But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this?
> AFAICT,
> many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free
> class library project.
But others do, so if we can use both, we can give people the choice
to work on what they want, and users to use what they want.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Anthony Green <gr...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:47 -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for
> that to happen,
> and get us rolling forward in that aspect as well.
Rather than dual license the code, maybe switching to LGPL+exception
would be better. The GNU FOO+exception licenses say that you can
redistribute using the FOO license at will.
But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this? AFAICT,
many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free
class library project.
AG
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:43:29AM -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Anthony Green wrote:
> >On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> >>I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is
> >>that it might
> >>be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark
> >>seemed to think
> >>that is not an unattainable goal. When I get my hands on some spare time
> >>(I hope it'll
> >>be under the christmas tree) I hope to push forward om some of that.
> >
> >I don't understand this. The GNU Classpath license was designed to be
> >even more liberal than the LGPL. What makes relicensing GNU Classpath
> >to LGPL a good idea?
>
> If the ASF and the FSF find an agreement on linking to and/or bundling
> LGPL material in an apache licensed distribution (and this finally seems
> likely to happen), then we would have the first ever licensing bridge
> between the two worlds.
Which will be awesome, really.
>
> Unfortunately, this bridge won't work for the GPL + exception, as it
> would need to be reconsidered and knowing how careful both sides are in
> terms of 'polluting their principles', I can tell you right now it might
> well take forever and a half. Granted, the existence of the LGPL bridge
> would help mitigate the fears of the most radical on both sides (yes,
> they exist), but it will take some time nevertheless.
>
Sure. Otoh, I don't think GPL+linking exception should be that hard to come
to terms with, considering that any binary of Apache Harmony I create on my
OS X box from the C code of JCHVM/bootstrap JVM will have to include code
licensed under GPL+linking exception (crt2.o and friends). See
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/compiler/ for details. And since we
ultimately want to ship binaries for people to play with (releasing early,
often and so on), eventually the board will have to come to a decision regarding
GPL+linking exception licenses and figure out if they are fair enough for us
to depend on in the Harmony binaries we ship.
But we can surely defer that until we start shipping OS X and Linux binaries :)
> If (and I say *IF*, I'm not suggesting anything to anybody) GNU
> Classpath was to relicense or even simply dual license itself as LGPL,
> it would make it possible to *automatically* have Harmony use that
> licensing bridge without further legal issues.
Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for that to happen,
and get us rolling forward in that aspect as well.
> full disclosure: I am *perfectly* aware of how bizarre all this sounds.
> Yet, building bridges is a long, painful and destabilizing process,
> especially for those who like to live in islands and feel, naively, that
> isolation is another word for purity. And yes, I'm pointing fingers to
> the ASF first.
Politics are complicated in any organisation ... and people tend to stick with
what they are familar with. People are people everywhere.
I think this is one of the projects where the sheer size of the undertaking,
and the potential respective benefits of cooperation make an insular approach
seem less attractive than collaborating, and bridge building.
> Sometimes, it's easier to rewrite some code than to convince people to
> relicense.
>
> Sometimes, it's easier to relicense some code than to convince people
> that mixing two licenses is: a) legal and b) useful for their ultimate goal.
>
> Sometimes, it's easier to tell everybody to f**k off and spend your life
> with your family/girlfriends/friends instead.
>
> At times, my life feels like a quantum superimposition of the above
> three states ;-)
>
If in doubt, I'd chose spending my time with my girlfriend over license
wrangling, as software licenses are so damn boring, whereas my girlfriend
is just wonderful. One has to have his priorities in life ... :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Anthony Green wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
>> I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is that it might
>> be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark seemed to think
>> that is not an unattainable goal. When I get my hands on some spare time (I hope it'll
>> be under the christmas tree) I hope to push forward om some of that.
>
> I don't understand this. The GNU Classpath license was designed to be
> even more liberal than the LGPL. What makes relicensing GNU Classpath
> to LGPL a good idea?
If the ASF and the FSF find an agreement on linking to and/or bundling
LGPL material in an apache licensed distribution (and this finally seems
likely to happen), then we would have the first ever licensing bridge
between the two worlds.
Unfortunately, this bridge won't work for the GPL + exception, as it
would need to be reconsidered and knowing how careful both sides are in
terms of 'polluting their principles', I can tell you right now it might
well take forever and a half. Granted, the existence of the LGPL bridge
would help mitigate the fears of the most radical on both sides (yes,
they exist), but it will take some time nevertheless.
If (and I say *IF*, I'm not suggesting anything to anybody) GNU
Classpath was to relicense or even simply dual license itself as LGPL,
it would make it possible to *automatically* have Harmony use that
licensing bridge without further legal issues.
full disclosure: I am *perfectly* aware of how bizarre all this sounds.
Yet, building bridges is a long, painful and destabilizing process,
especially for those who like to live in islands and feel, naively, that
isolation is another word for purity. And yes, I'm pointing fingers to
the ASF first.
Sometimes, it's easier to rewrite some code than to convince people to
relicense.
Sometimes, it's easier to relicense some code than to convince people
that mixing two licenses is: a) legal and b) useful for their ultimate goal.
Sometimes, it's easier to tell everybody to f**k off and spend your life
with your family/girlfriends/friends instead.
At times, my life feels like a quantum superimposition of the above
three states ;-)
--
Stefano.
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 02:17:03PM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> My 2 cents, As a committer on the most forked SOAP engine on the
> planet (Apache Axis -
> http://wiki.apache.org/ws/FrontPage/Axis/AxisBeingUsed)..i can safely
> say that this is why i keep working on Apache stuff, you never know
> where your code will turn up next. For example
> (http://www.hpsearch.org/documents/api/cgl/hpsearch/common/SOAPClient.html)
> and i like it that way.
Yeah, same here, as a committer on the most widely forked VM out there (Kaffe,
GPLd, forks from Pocketlinux, DOS, BeOS, to MiNT, WinCE, Plan9, to all sort of
cool research stuff like latte, jessica2, janosvm, ..), I actively encourage
people to go and just fork it for their needs, in case things are moving too
fast on cvs HEAD for them.
Forks are great. It's merging back changes that's painful with cvs ;)
cheers,
dalibor topic
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 12/4/05, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> > Anthony,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:03:44PM -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> > > > I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is that it might
> > > > be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark seemed to think
> > > > that is not an unattainable goal. When I get my hands on some spare time (I hope it'll
> > > > be under the christmas tree) I hope to push forward om some of that.
> > >
> > > I don't understand this.
> >
> > I don't fully understand it either.
> >
> > > The GNU Classpath license was designed to be
> > > even more liberal than the LGPL. What makes relicensing GNU Classpath
> > > to LGPL a good idea?
> >
> > It looks like it might be a step on a path to having hundreds of developers who
> > are part of the GNU community working with hundreds of developers who are part
> > of the ASF community.
> >
> > It looks like such a step a little more than the GPL+Exception license does. I
> > think that's primarily because the various legal properties of the LGPL are
> > apparently better understood (or liked) by a large variety of legal people than
> > the GPL+Exception license.
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > I don't pretend to understand what drives most people who prefer "free software"
> > to "open source" or the other way around. I have never cared very much about copyleft
> > or copyright or "software freedoms". Can't get worked up about it. I care about "real
> > life freedoms", such as "freedom of speech" or "freedom to have at least one proper
> > meal a day".
> >
> > Anyway, the "freedom" I keep looking for is "the freedom to all work together on cool
> > code without worrying about licensing". If lots of people are less worried about the
> > LGPL than about other licenses, then that means the LGPL is, in my world view, a nice
> > license. It would probably be best to try and make those worried people worry less
> > about the GPL+Exception, but that seems like a very hard thing to do.
> >
> > I hope the above made sense...
> >
> > - LSD
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
My 2 cents, As a committer on the most forked SOAP engine on the
planet (Apache Axis -
http://wiki.apache.org/ws/FrontPage/Axis/AxisBeingUsed)..i can safely
say that this is why i keep working on Apache stuff, you never know
where your code will turn up next. For example
(http://www.hpsearch.org/documents/api/cgl/hpsearch/common/SOAPClient.html)
and i like it that way.
thanks,
dims
On 12/4/05, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:03:44PM -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> > > I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is that it might
> > > be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark seemed to think
> > > that is not an unattainable goal. When I get my hands on some spare time (I hope it'll
> > > be under the christmas tree) I hope to push forward om some of that.
> >
> > I don't understand this.
>
> I don't fully understand it either.
>
> > The GNU Classpath license was designed to be
> > even more liberal than the LGPL. What makes relicensing GNU Classpath
> > to LGPL a good idea?
>
> It looks like it might be a step on a path to having hundreds of developers who
> are part of the GNU community working with hundreds of developers who are part
> of the ASF community.
>
> It looks like such a step a little more than the GPL+Exception license does. I
> think that's primarily because the various legal properties of the LGPL are
> apparently better understood (or liked) by a large variety of legal people than
> the GPL+Exception license.
>
> (...)
>
> I don't pretend to understand what drives most people who prefer "free software"
> to "open source" or the other way around. I have never cared very much about copyleft
> or copyright or "software freedoms". Can't get worked up about it. I care about "real
> life freedoms", such as "freedom of speech" or "freedom to have at least one proper
> meal a day".
>
> Anyway, the "freedom" I keep looking for is "the freedom to all work together on cool
> code without worrying about licensing". If lots of people are less worried about the
> LGPL than about other licenses, then that means the LGPL is, in my world view, a nice
> license. It would probably be best to try and make those worried people worry less
> about the GPL+Exception, but that seems like a very hard thing to do.
>
> I hope the above made sense...
>
> - LSD
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Full disclosure
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Anthony,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:03:44PM -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> > I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is that it might
> > be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark seemed to think
> > that is not an unattainable goal. When I get my hands on some spare time (I hope it'll
> > be under the christmas tree) I hope to push forward om some of that.
>
> I don't understand this.
I don't fully understand it either.
> The GNU Classpath license was designed to be
> even more liberal than the LGPL. What makes relicensing GNU Classpath
> to LGPL a good idea?
It looks like it might be a step on a path to having hundreds of developers who
are part of the GNU community working with hundreds of developers who are part
of the ASF community.
It looks like such a step a little more than the GPL+Exception license does. I
think that's primarily because the various legal properties of the LGPL are
apparently better understood (or liked) by a large variety of legal people than
the GPL+Exception license.
(...)
I don't pretend to understand what drives most people who prefer "free software"
to "open source" or the other way around. I have never cared very much about copyleft
or copyright or "software freedoms". Can't get worked up about it. I care about "real
life freedoms", such as "freedom of speech" or "freedom to have at least one proper
meal a day".
Anyway, the "freedom" I keep looking for is "the freedom to all work together on cool
code without worrying about licensing". If lots of people are less worried about the
LGPL than about other licenses, then that means the LGPL is, in my world view, a nice
license. It would probably be best to try and make those worried people worry less
about the GPL+Exception, but that seems like a very hard thing to do.
I hope the above made sense...
- LSD