You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Tom <ec...@gatewide.com> on 2005/06/30 18:31:15 UTC
Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Date: 06/28/05
Location: Thirsty Bear, San Francisco, CA
Present:
Geir Magnusson
Flavio Bergamaschi
Ian Darwin
Weldon Waschburn
Tom Enderes
[Geir] Start off with codebase from Dan Lydicks VM ?
[Flavio] Need proper SE Process?
[Flavio] Volunteered to do GC design and implementation.
[Tom] Need to list requirements:
- Target OSs: Windows, Linux
- Target CPUs: 486, Mips
- [Weldon/Flavio]: modular architecture. Not only for class
libraries but also for the VM itself
[Geir] Will try to resolve legal issues by direct dialogs with IBM and
Intel and get them to sign agreement.
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jun 30, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Rafal Lewczuk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 6/30/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>> [Geir] Start off with codebase from Dan Lydicks VM ?
>>>
>>
>> This is really about an offline conversation that I had with Dan. I
>> owe him an email (got bogged here at JavaOne), but I was going to
>> encourage him to approach the community with what he has. I'll let
>> him take it from here if he chooses :)
>>
>
> Is this code available somewhere ?
I'll contact him directly, but I'm sure he's reading this.
geir
>
> Regards,
> rle
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Rafal Lewczuk <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 6/30/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> > [Geir] Start off with codebase from Dan Lydicks VM ?
>
> This is really about an offline conversation that I had with Dan. I
> owe him an email (got bogged here at JavaOne), but I was going to
> encourage him to approach the community with what he has. I'll let
> him take it from here if he chooses :)
Is this code available somewhere ?
Regards,
rle
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:31 AM, Tom wrote:
> Date: 06/28/05
> Location: Thirsty Bear, San Francisco, CA
> Present:
> Geir Magnusson
> Flavio Bergamaschi
> Ian Darwin
> Weldon Waschburn
> Tom Enderes
>
This was an informal social meetup over that great OSS lubricant,
beer :) Flavio is a friend of mine who has been following our
progress - he's interested in VMs
> [Geir] Start off with codebase from Dan Lydicks VM ?
This is really about an offline conversation that I had with Dan. I
owe him an email (got bogged here at JavaOne), but I was going to
encourage him to approach the community with what he has. I'll let
him take it from here if he chooses :)
>
> [Geir] Will try to resolve legal issues by direct dialogs with IBM and
> Intel and get them to sign agreement.
Actually, this is doesn't quite capture the intent. We have a
proposal for legal structure and process on the table, and I need to
get as much input and feedback as possible from all members of the
community, including commercial entities like Sun, BEA, IBM, Intel,
Apple etc that may have some interest in what we are doing, and would
need to understand the legal framework we're proposing...
I have the official "Harmony" sign we put on the table. I'll take a
picture and post to our website :)
geir
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
I'd like to make something very clear, as I've gotten a private
inquiry, and if one person is confused, than others will be..
This note means nothing other than Tom's good intention of keeping
things visible for people that weren't there, which was
EntireCommunity - 4 people. IMO, it gave some visibility into what
we talked about, and nothing more.
This was a social get-together, and nothing - absolutely nothing
other than what kind of beer we were having (and I'll note we all had
individual choices...) - was decided or could have been decided.
In an Apache project, the decisions are made by the community on the
mailing lists for all to see and participate in.
I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused - I should have
spoken up sooner.
geir
P.S. The IPA was very good...
On Jun 30, 2005, at 12:31 PM, Tom wrote:
> Date: 06/28/05
> Location: Thirsty Bear, San Francisco, CA
> Present:
> Geir Magnusson
> Flavio Bergamaschi
> Ian Darwin
> Weldon Waschburn
> Tom Enderes
>
> [Geir] Start off with codebase from Dan Lydicks VM ?
>
> [Flavio] Need proper SE Process?
>
> [Flavio] Volunteered to do GC design and implementation.
>
> [Tom] Need to list requirements:
> - Target OSs: Windows, Linux
> - Target CPUs: 486, Mips
> - [Weldon/Flavio]: modular architecture. Not only for class
> libraries but also for the VM itself
>
> [Geir] Will try to resolve legal issues by direct dialogs with IBM and
> Intel and get them to sign agreement.
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
RE: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Renaud BECHADE <re...@numerix.com>.
Sounds a bit like a time-bomb to me...
RB
-----Original Message-----
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 10:05 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Weldon Washburn
Subject: Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
+1 to Robin. "proceed as though the license issues will eventually be
worked out"
-- dims
On 7/5/05, Robin Garner <Ro...@anu.edu.au> wrote:
> I don't know where you get the idea that downloading JikesRVM or any
> component thereof 'contaminates' you. The e-mail you refer to talks
> about redistributing a work derived from a CPL-ed work as part of an
> Apache distribution.
>
> While MMTk is a component of JikesRVM, it is maintained by a distinct
> subgroup of the JikesRVM community. If Harmony were to use MMTk, I'm
> sure we could make it available under an appropriate license.
>
> In any case, the development model of MMTk is to be portable, as
> reflected in the Rotor and JNode ports, and to maintain a common code
> base for all platforms it supports. There would then be no issue of
> distributing a derived work.
>
> Can't you just work on the same basis as people are with Classpath -
> just proceed as though the license issues will eventually be worked
> out ?
>
> Regards,
> Robin
>
> On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 22:17 -0700, Weldon Washburn wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I am not allowed to download JikesRVM at this time.
> > Since I can't download Jikes, I did the next best thing -- a Google
> > search. As far as I can tell, MMTK is part of JikesRVM and does not
> > exist as a stand-alone entity. Is this correct?
> >
> > Also, the following mail archive says that Apache has issues with CPL
code:
> >
> >
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/%3C26
645680-8D0F-11D9-ACFB-000A95D41A40@apache.org%3E
> >
> > Does MMTK exist under any other license? I'd like to look at the
> > MMTK/VM interface(s) but don't know how to do this without becoming
> > contaminated. Does anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Weldon
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/1/05, Daniel Feinberg <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I can't find the license to MMTK. Can you post a pointer?
> > > If you download JikesRVM you can see in the MMTK directory that it is
> > > licenced under CPL or the Common Public Licence.
> > >
> > > This is quoted from the licence file supplied with MMTK:
> > >
> > > MMTk is free, open source software, distributed and freely
> > > redistributable under the Common Public License (CPL). The CPL has
> > > been certified by the Open Source Initiative as an open source
> > > license. The CPL meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Feinberg
> > > http://www.cs.unm.edu/~danielf
> > >
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 to Robin. "proceed as though the license issues will eventually be
worked out"
-- dims
On 7/5/05, Robin Garner <Ro...@anu.edu.au> wrote:
> I don't know where you get the idea that downloading JikesRVM or any
> component thereof 'contaminates' you. The e-mail you refer to talks
> about redistributing a work derived from a CPL-ed work as part of an
> Apache distribution.
>
> While MMTk is a component of JikesRVM, it is maintained by a distinct
> subgroup of the JikesRVM community. If Harmony were to use MMTk, I'm
> sure we could make it available under an appropriate license.
>
> In any case, the development model of MMTk is to be portable, as
> reflected in the Rotor and JNode ports, and to maintain a common code
> base for all platforms it supports. There would then be no issue of
> distributing a derived work.
>
> Can't you just work on the same basis as people are with Classpath -
> just proceed as though the license issues will eventually be worked
> out ?
>
> Regards,
> Robin
>
> On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 22:17 -0700, Weldon Washburn wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I am not allowed to download JikesRVM at this time.
> > Since I can't download Jikes, I did the next best thing -- a Google
> > search. As far as I can tell, MMTK is part of JikesRVM and does not
> > exist as a stand-alone entity. Is this correct?
> >
> > Also, the following mail archive says that Apache has issues with CPL code:
> >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/%3C26645680-8D0F-11D9-ACFB-000A95D41A40@apache.org%3E
> >
> > Does MMTK exist under any other license? I'd like to look at the
> > MMTK/VM interface(s) but don't know how to do this without becoming
> > contaminated. Does anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Weldon
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/1/05, Daniel Feinberg <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I can't find the license to MMTK. Can you post a pointer?
> > > If you download JikesRVM you can see in the MMTK directory that it is
> > > licenced under CPL or the Common Public Licence.
> > >
> > > This is quoted from the licence file supplied with MMTK:
> > >
> > > MMTk is free, open source software, distributed and freely
> > > redistributable under the Common Public License (CPL). The CPL has
> > > been certified by the Open Source Initiative as an open source
> > > license. The CPL meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Feinberg
> > > http://www.cs.unm.edu/~danielf
> > >
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Rodrigo Kumpera <ku...@gmail.com>.
This is insane, if implementing the classlibrary takes half the time
the GNU folks are on the road, by the time Harmony completes 1.5,
2010+, it will be history.
Leveraging ASL compatible software is the only feasible way to have it progress.
On 7/5/05, Weldon Washburn <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Exactly. Harmony won't bundle non-Apache code with its download. The
> goal is a complete Apache licensed JVM stack that works right out of
> the box. This includes a GC. If Harmony modularization is
> successful, third parties can plug in non-Apache components such as a
> GC from Jikes, Rotor, Sun, etc.
>
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Weldon Washburn <we...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the suggestion. I will find out if I am allowed to look at
the sourceforge documentation. I looked on google for any open
literature describing the integration of MMTK and a C/C++ based VM.
As far as I can tell, the port to Rotor falls into this category. But
I can't look at Rotor code.
-- Weldon
On 7/5/05, David P Grove <gr...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> take a look at the javadoc (http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/api/). That
> should be "mostly harmless" from a contamination perspective.
>
> --dave
>
--
Weldon Washburn
Intel Managed Runtime Division
MMTk (was Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting)
Posted by Robin Garner <Ro...@anu.edu.au>.
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:27 -0400, David P Grove wrote:
> take a look at the javadoc (http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/api/). That
> should be "mostly harmless" from a contamination perspective.
>
> --dave
So if you do this, the packages you want to look at are:
org.mmtk.vm - This is what MMTk requires the VM to provide
com.ibm.JikesRVM.memoryManagers.mmInterface - This is what JikesRVM
require its memory manager to provide it.
Are you allowed to download code licensed under LGPL ? If so, another
route to checking out the interface is to download Jnode from
www.jnode.org and look at their implementation of the VM interface.
cheers
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by David P Grove <gr...@us.ibm.com>.
take a look at the javadoc (http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/api/). That
should be "mostly harmless" from a contamination perspective.
--dave
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Daniel Feinberg <cs...@gmail.com>.
> > > Does MMTK exist under any other license? I'd like to look at the
> > > MMTK/VM interface(s) but don't know how to do this without becoming
> > > contaminated. Does anyone have any ideas?
So you mentioned the interface between MMTK and the VM. If you are
looking for it, it can be found in 2 places. One place contains an
empty function that does nothing and is replaced by magic, the second
place is in the
/rvm/src/vm/memoryManagers/JMTk/vmInterface
Those file should have the code you are looking for. These files give
an interface to the plan that is in use for the GC.
Daniel Feinberg
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~danielf
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Weldon Washburn <we...@gmail.com>.
On 7/4/05, Robin Garner <Ro...@anu.edu.au> wrote:
> I don't know where you get the idea that downloading JikesRVM or any
> component thereof 'contaminates' you.
I may be wrong on the contamination issue. The real issue is that I
do not have permission to download anything but Apache licensed code.
>The e-mail you refer to talks
> about redistributing a work derived from a CPL-ed work as part of an
> Apache distribution.
Exactly. Harmony won't bundle non-Apache code with its download. The
goal is a complete Apache licensed JVM stack that works right out of
the box. This includes a GC. If Harmony modularization is
successful, third parties can plug in non-Apache components such as a
GC from Jikes, Rotor, Sun, etc.
>
> While MMTk is a component of JikesRVM, it is maintained by a distinct
> subgroup of the JikesRVM community. If Harmony were to use MMTk, I'm
> sure we could make it available under an appropriate license.
>
> In any case, the development model of MMTk is to be portable, as
> reflected in the Rotor and JNode ports, and to maintain a common code
> base for all platforms it supports. There would then be no issue of
> distributing a derived work.
>
> Can't you just work on the same basis as people are with Classpath -
> just proceed as though the license issues will eventually be worked
> out ?
Unfortunately, I am not allowed to proceed until the license issues
are worked out.
>
> Regards,
> Robin
>
> On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 22:17 -0700, Weldon Washburn wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I am not allowed to download JikesRVM at this time.
> > Since I can't download Jikes, I did the next best thing -- a Google
> > search. As far as I can tell, MMTK is part of JikesRVM and does not
> > exist as a stand-alone entity. Is this correct?
> >
> > Also, the following mail archive says that Apache has issues with CPL code:
> >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/%3C26645680-8D0F-11D9-ACFB-000A95D41A40@apache.org%3E
> >
> > Does MMTK exist under any other license? I'd like to look at the
> > MMTK/VM interface(s) but don't know how to do this without becoming
> > contaminated. Does anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Weldon
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/1/05, Daniel Feinberg <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I can't find the license to MMTK. Can you post a pointer?
> > > If you download JikesRVM you can see in the MMTK directory that it is
> > > licenced under CPL or the Common Public Licence.
> > >
> > > This is quoted from the licence file supplied with MMTK:
> > >
> > > MMTk is free, open source software, distributed and freely
> > > redistributable under the Common Public License (CPL). The CPL has
> > > been certified by the Open Source Initiative as an open source
> > > license. The CPL meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Feinberg
> > > http://www.cs.unm.edu/~danielf
> > >
>
>
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Robin Garner <Ro...@anu.edu.au>.
I don't know where you get the idea that downloading JikesRVM or any
component thereof 'contaminates' you. The e-mail you refer to talks
about redistributing a work derived from a CPL-ed work as part of an
Apache distribution.
While MMTk is a component of JikesRVM, it is maintained by a distinct
subgroup of the JikesRVM community. If Harmony were to use MMTk, I'm
sure we could make it available under an appropriate license.
In any case, the development model of MMTk is to be portable, as
reflected in the Rotor and JNode ports, and to maintain a common code
base for all platforms it supports. There would then be no issue of
distributing a derived work.
Can't you just work on the same basis as people are with Classpath -
just proceed as though the license issues will eventually be worked
out ?
Regards,
Robin
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 22:17 -0700, Weldon Washburn wrote:
> Unfortunately, I am not allowed to download JikesRVM at this time.
> Since I can't download Jikes, I did the next best thing -- a Google
> search. As far as I can tell, MMTK is part of JikesRVM and does not
> exist as a stand-alone entity. Is this correct?
>
> Also, the following mail archive says that Apache has issues with CPL code:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/%3C26645680-8D0F-11D9-ACFB-000A95D41A40@apache.org%3E
>
> Does MMTK exist under any other license? I'd like to look at the
> MMTK/VM interface(s) but don't know how to do this without becoming
> contaminated. Does anyone have any ideas?
>
> Thanks
> Weldon
>
>
>
> On 7/1/05, Daniel Feinberg <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I can't find the license to MMTK. Can you post a pointer?
> > If you download JikesRVM you can see in the MMTK directory that it is
> > licenced under CPL or the Common Public Licence.
> >
> > This is quoted from the licence file supplied with MMTK:
> >
> > MMTk is free, open source software, distributed and freely
> > redistributable under the Common Public License (CPL). The CPL has
> > been certified by the Open Source Initiative as an open source
> > license. The CPL meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Feinberg
> > http://www.cs.unm.edu/~danielf
> >
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>> Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to
>>> Harmony would
>>> be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
>>>
>>
>>
>> Allright. I'll bite. What's more liberal? I consider that the
>> AL is
>> the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the
>> users
>> full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed
>> software,
>> but with any derivative works or additional innovation they may
>> combine
>> with it...
>>
>>
>
> Sorry for sounding confusing, I meant BSD (without advertising), 'Do
> What You F*ing Want License', public domain, and similar permissive
> (and
> biref) arrangements. The Apache 2.0 License is pretty nice and liberal
> as software licenses go :)
>
Thanks for clarifying.
geir
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
[OT] Funny licenses (Was: Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting)
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Danese Cooper wrote:
> (you are so eloquent in your descriptions :-) )
Ah, looks like the license I meant is actually called WTFPL:
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ , though I believe I captured the spirit of it
in my description. :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
(you are so eloquent in your descriptions :-) )
D
On Jul 7, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>> Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to
>>> Harmony would
>>> be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
>>>
>>
>>
>> Allright. I'll bite. What's more liberal? I consider that the
>> AL is
>> the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the
>> users
>> full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed
>> software,
>> but with any derivative works or additional innovation they may
>> combine
>> with it...
>>
>>
>
> Sorry for sounding confusing, I meant BSD (without advertising), 'Do
> What You F*ing Want License', public domain, and similar permissive
> (and
> biref) arrangements. The Apache 2.0 License is pretty nice and liberal
> as software licenses go :)
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to Harmony would
>> be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
>
>
> Allright. I'll bite. What's more liberal? I consider that the AL is
> the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the users
> full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed software,
> but with any derivative works or additional innovation they may combine
> with it...
>
Sorry for sounding confusing, I meant BSD (without advertising), 'Do
What You F*ing Want License', public domain, and similar permissive (and
biref) arrangements. The Apache 2.0 License is pretty nice and liberal
as software licenses go :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 7, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Peter Donald wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>> Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to
>>> Harmony would
>>> be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
>>>
>> Allright. I'll bite. What's more liberal? I consider that the
>> AL is the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it
>> gives the users full freedom to do as they choose not only with
>> the licensed software, but with any derivative works or
>> additional innovation they may combine with it...
>>
>
> BSDL/MIT etc. AFAIK these style licenses allow for inclusion in
> both GPL and Apache products.
Agreed. But the patent issues are important, and right now the ALv2
is the state of the art in the BSD family.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to Harmony would
>> be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
>
>
> Allright. I'll bite. What's more liberal? I consider that the AL is
> the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the users
> full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed software,
> but with any derivative works or additional innovation they may combine
> with it...
BSDL/MIT etc. AFAIK these style licenses allow for inclusion in both GPL
and Apache products.
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 20, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 10:40 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>>
>>>> That seems to be similar to how we (FSF/GNU) look at the CPL. It
>>>> is a
>>>> free software license. But since it is incompatible with the GPL
>>>> (has
>>>> different requirements on distribution) we are happy to use it for
>>>> standalone use in applications, but we won't use such code bases
>>>> for
>>>> creating larger derivative works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to Harmony
>>> would
>>> be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
>>>
>>
>> Allright. I'll bite. What's more liberal? I consider that the AL
>> is the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the
>> users full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed
>> software, but with any derivative works or additional innovation they
>> may combine with it...
>>
>
> Some examples are the MIT/X, "Modern" BSD, the IKVM and ORP license.
I'll buy that, except I'll note that the IKVM license isn't
recognized as an OSS license by OSI (although there probably is a
close one...) and the ORP license - the Intel Open Source License,
has been withdrawn as a recommendation to try and limit FLOSS license
proliferation.
>
> The ASL is definitely less "liberal" then any of the above since it
> has
> extra requirements. Not that those extra requirements are such a bad
> thing. They seem designed to protect the free software community from
> loosing credit or distribution rights in the future. Just like the GPL
> adds some requirements to make sure all derived works will benefit the
> users and the community. But for example the patent-retaliation clause
> in ASLv2 is an extra restriction that isn't in any of the above and
> that
> makes it GPLv2 incompatible.
Once you get it in GPLv3, all will be fine :)
(And then GPLv2 code will be incompatible with GPLv3 code?)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 10:40 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >> That seems to be similar to how we (FSF/GNU) look at the CPL. It is a
> >> free software license. But since it is incompatible with the GPL (has
> >> different requirements on distribution) we are happy to use it for
> >> standalone use in applications, but we won't use such code bases for
> >> creating larger derivative works.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to Harmony
> > would
> > be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
>
> Allright. I'll bite. What's more liberal? I consider that the AL
> is the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the
> users full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed
> software, but with any derivative works or additional innovation they
> may combine with it...
Some examples are the MIT/X, "Modern" BSD, the IKVM and ORP license.
The ASL is definitely less "liberal" then any of the above since it has
extra requirements. Not that those extra requirements are such a bad
thing. They seem designed to protect the free software community from
loosing credit or distribution rights in the future. Just like the GPL
adds some requirements to make sure all derived works will benefit the
users and the community. But for example the patent-retaliation clause
in ASLv2 is an extra restriction that isn't in any of the above and that
makes it GPLv2 incompatible.
Cheers,
Mark
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 22:17 -0700, Weldon Washburn wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Also, the following mail archive says that Apache has issues with
>>> CPL code:
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>>> 200503.mbox/%3C26645680-8D0F-11D9-ACFB-000A95D41A40@apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> Does MMTK exist under any other license?
>>>
>>
>>
>> That seems to be similar to how we (FSF/GNU) look at the CPL. It is a
>> free software license. But since it is incompatible with the GPL (has
>> different requirements on distribution) we are happy to use it for
>> standalone use in applications, but we won't use such code bases for
>> creating larger derivative works.
>>
>
> Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to Harmony
> would
> be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
Allright. I'll bite. What's more liberal? I consider that the AL
is the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the
users full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed
software, but with any derivative works or additional innovation they
may combine with it...
if the answer starts with a "G", please just email me off-list :)
> and
> the work on fixing the license incompatibility between Apache license
> (2) and GPL (2) would result in the legal harmonization allowing the
> reuse of bits and chunks of Harmony in GPLd projects as well.
Yep!
geir
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 22:17 -0700, Weldon Washburn wrote:
>
>>Also, the following mail archive says that Apache has issues with CPL code:
>>
>>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/%3C26645680-8D0F-11D9-ACFB-000A95D41A40@apache.org%3E
>>
>>Does MMTK exist under any other license?
>
>
> That seems to be similar to how we (FSF/GNU) look at the CPL. It is a
> free software license. But since it is incompatible with the GPL (has
> different requirements on distribution) we are happy to use it for
> standalone use in applications, but we won't use such code bases for
> creating larger derivative works.
Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to Harmony would
be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses, and
the work on fixing the license incompatibility between Apache license
(2) and GPL (2) would result in the legal harmonization allowing the
reuse of bits and chunks of Harmony in GPLd projects as well.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi,
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 22:17 -0700, Weldon Washburn wrote:
> Also, the following mail archive says that Apache has issues with CPL code:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/%3C26645680-8D0F-11D9-ACFB-000A95D41A40@apache.org%3E
>
> Does MMTK exist under any other license?
That seems to be similar to how we (FSF/GNU) look at the CPL. It is a
free software license. But since it is incompatible with the GPL (has
different requirements on distribution) we are happy to use it for
standalone use in applications, but we won't use such code bases for
creating larger derivative works. (Note that gcj use the
Boehm-Demers-Weiser garbage collector, kaffe has its own, but can also
use boehm and jamvm has its own memory manager.)
Cheers,
Mark
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Weldon Washburn <we...@gmail.com>.
Unfortunately, I am not allowed to download JikesRVM at this time.
Since I can't download Jikes, I did the next best thing -- a Google
search. As far as I can tell, MMTK is part of JikesRVM and does not
exist as a stand-alone entity. Is this correct?
Also, the following mail archive says that Apache has issues with CPL code:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/%3C26645680-8D0F-11D9-ACFB-000A95D41A40@apache.org%3E
Does MMTK exist under any other license? I'd like to look at the
MMTK/VM interface(s) but don't know how to do this without becoming
contaminated. Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks
Weldon
On 7/1/05, Daniel Feinberg <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can't find the license to MMTK. Can you post a pointer?
> If you download JikesRVM you can see in the MMTK directory that it is
> licenced under CPL or the Common Public Licence.
>
> This is quoted from the licence file supplied with MMTK:
>
> MMTk is free, open source software, distributed and freely
> redistributable under the Common Public License (CPL). The CPL has
> been certified by the Open Source Initiative as an open source
> license. The CPL meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Feinberg
> http://www.cs.unm.edu/~danielf
>
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Daniel Feinberg <cs...@gmail.com>.
> I can't find the license to MMTK. Can you post a pointer?
If you download JikesRVM you can see in the MMTK directory that it is
licenced under CPL or the Common Public Licence.
This is quoted from the licence file supplied with MMTK:
MMTk is free, open source software, distributed and freely
redistributable under the Common Public License (CPL). The CPL has
been certified by the Open Source Initiative as an open source
license. The CPL meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
--
Daniel Feinberg
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~danielf
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Weldon Washburn <we...@gmail.com>.
On 6/30/05, Robin Garner <Ro...@anu.edu.au> wrote:
> > [Flavio] Volunteered to do GC design and implementation.
> >
>
> I feel strongly that whatever the implementation language, Harmony
> should use MMTk as the memory manager. Does anyone have a reason not
> to, or has it just not been considered ?
I can't find the license to MMTK. Can you post a pointer?
>
> cheers,
> Robin
>
>
Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting
Posted by Robin Garner <Ro...@anu.edu.au>.
> [Flavio] Volunteered to do GC design and implementation.
>
I feel strongly that whatever the implementation language, Harmony
should use MMTk as the memory manager. Does anyone have a reason not
to, or has it just not been considered ?
cheers,
Robin