You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Stuart Ballard <st...@gmail.com> on 2006/11/07 18:08:39 UTC
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
On 11/7/06, Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> btw, I signed up on the japi mail list, so I think we should take it
> from there.
cc'ing both harmony-dev and japitools-list for now so that at least
harmony folks are aware the discussion is moving. Feel free to just
stick to japitools-list for followups.
> If you need some CSS/webdesign skills, I'll be happy to give a hand.
Heh, yeah, I know it's ugly. I generally know enough CSS and HTML to
achieve a particular desired result - it's knowing *what* desired
result I want to achieve that's tricky.
In theory I like the idea of a site that mimics the look of the
results pages somewhat, since that's what most people know Japitools
from. It'd be great if that could be achieved while still being
attractive and usable though.
> > I'd really love if some Harmony developers would join the japitools
> > mailing list if you're interested in the Japi results and how to make
> > best use of them. I plan to announce both the lists and the new
> > website more prominently when I have a new release to announce as
> > well, but seeing as there was active discussion going on right now, I
> > didn't want to wait.
>
> oh, didn't even know one existed.
It didn't. I created it about 2 days ago ;)
> > (Yes, the japitools list is on an FSF server. I really really hope
> > that this isn't going to be a political problem for you guys. I
> > selected Savannah for hosting japitools before Harmony even existed,
> > because it made most sense at the time when Classpath developers were
> > the main users. Please don't let that hinder our ability to
> > communicate on something that makes sense for all projects concerned)
>
> you kidding? of course I'll join.
I'm never quite sure. Some of the politics between the Classpath and
Harmony projects have been quite scary from my point of view.
Stuart.
--
http://sab39.dev.netreach.com/
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by Chris Gray <ch...@kiffer.be>.
On Thursday 09 November 2006 11:20, David Gilbert wrote:
> Why don't we be honest and just admit that there is no goodwill between
> the projects? It was there, briefly, but now it is gone. There's no
> collaboration, there's no cooperation...just two separate projects
> implementing the same API. It is the way it is, and the world is moving
> on...but let's stop pretending.
I thinks there's quite a bit of goodwill at the individual developer level,
but this doesn't translate easily into collaboration. If a developer already
contributing to one project would want to make a particular contribution
available to both, she needs to not only dual-license her work but to get
clearance from the other project to contribute - that's quite a lot of work
already. And then she has to track acceptance or otherwise of the
contribution and subsequent bug reports on both lists, which is also extra
work. One could hardly blame her for sticking with the project she knows.
Both FSF and ASF tend to generate strong developer loyalty (which is a Good
Thing in each case), but that doesn't necessarily mean the world is divided
into two opposing camps.
Peace,
Chris
--
Chris Gray /k/ Embedded Java Solutions BE0503765045
Embedded & Mobile Java, OSGi http://www.k-embedded-java.com/
chris.gray@kiffer.be +32 3 216 0369
Note: our official registered address has changed from
Paleisstraat 119 to Koningstraat 21, 2000 Antwerpen. The
operational address Bredestraat 4 remains valid, as do
all telephone and fax numbers (and the VAT reg. number).
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
David Gilbert wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sun using the GPL is a boon for Classpath, so good for them - I'm not
>> sure how they can actually use the Sun code, as Sun won't be granting
>> copyright assignment to the FSF as GNU Classpath requires, and it's
>> under a different license (not the GPL + Exception), but I'm sure
>> they'll work something out.
>>
>> geir
>>
> A boon? Not at all, Classpath will be (mostly) redundant and will fade
> away, replaced by Sun's runtime.
I'm not so convinced of that. GNU Classpath is under GPL + Exception,
so arguably it's not viral to things that link with it.
While this is sheer speculation because we haven't seen anything yet, if
Sun goes with the GPL, they won't have such feature in the license.
Also, I think the copyright assignment requirement will be a big deal.
> But as I said elsewhere, that's a good
> outcome if all you are interested in is a good quality free / open
> source runtime to run Java applications on...and I'm not after anything
> more than that.
Understood. For me, an additional requirement is an open and level
community, where all participants are working together under exactly the
same terms. (Which is where GNU Classpath will be different than what I
understand the Sun model will be)
geir
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Gilbert
>
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by David Gilbert <da...@object-refinery.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Sun using the GPL is a boon for Classpath, so good for them - I'm not
> sure how they can actually use the Sun code, as Sun won't be granting
> copyright assignment to the FSF as GNU Classpath requires, and it's
> under a different license (not the GPL + Exception), but I'm sure
> they'll work something out.
>
> geir
>
A boon? Not at all, Classpath will be (mostly) redundant and will fade
away, replaced by Sun's runtime. But as I said elsewhere, that's a good
outcome if all you are interested in is a good quality free / open
source runtime to run Java applications on...and I'm not after anything
more than that.
Regards,
Dave Gilbert
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
David Gilbert wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> The only real issue that we had is license incompatibility, but I
>> thought there was goodwill everywhere to work where we could.
>>
>
> Why don't we be honest and just admit that there is no goodwill between
> the projects? It was there, briefly, but now it is gone. There's no
> collaboration, there's no cooperation...just two separate projects
> implementing the same API. It is the way it is, and the world is moving
> on...but let's stop pretending.
I'm not pretending. Many of us have goodwill - this project is a
collection of collaborating individuals. We don't have an "Official
Harmony Position" on GNU Classpath or any other project, just like I
don't think that GNU Classpath has any official position about Harmony.
We can't work together directly because of licensing. We've been
heads down with our own work - we know a lot more now, so maybe we can
find places to start discussion again.
I support what the GNU Classpath people are trying to do, although I
choose not to directly participate there. Sun using the GPL is a boon
for Classpath, so good for them - I'm not sure how they can actually use
the Sun code, as Sun won't be granting copyright assignment to the FSF
as GNU Classpath requires, and it's under a different license (not the
GPL + Exception), but I'm sure they'll work something out.
geir
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Gilbert
> JFreeChart Project Leader
>
> P.S. This is a personal opinion, but I'm happy to disclose that I'm an
> occasional contributor to the GNU Classpath project.
Re: [Japi] Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with
japitools]
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> Japitools isn't affiliated with Classpath btw, I had Classpath in mind
> when I originally developed it, yes, and it's GPL licensed because I
> have a mild preference for that license, but I don't feel strongly
> about it. One of the reasons I started a Japitools list in fact was to
> try to have some neutral ground for discussions to avoid any
> perception (or, even worse, reality) that Harmony had any kind of
> second class status.
For what it's worth, I don't care that it's under the GPL, and I don't
care where it's hosted, or what community it's associated with.
I'm really glad that you create the program, and really appreciative
that you generously spend your time also analyzing the harmony code base.
I think of Japitools as one of the first bridges between the two
communities, and it's encouraging for me that it's there and thriving.
>
> While I admit that coming from the Classpath side of the fence
> originally, I have mixed feelings about whether the licensing
> differences were actually worth starting a whole separate project for.
> But Harmony exists and I hope it succeeds, just as I hope Classpath
> succeeds. More interoperable implementations can't hurt. And the
> "interoperable" part is where Japitools comes in.
Agreed - more open source java is good!
>
> So can we all play nice? ;)
Yes :)
>
> Stuart.
Re: [Japi] Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by Stuart Ballard <st...@gmail.com>.
On 11/9/06, Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sometimes some climbers manage to get to the other side to find that
> some people are very welcoming and appreciative of cultural differences
> while others not so much.
Ok, wow, this whole subthread is kind of what I meant by the politics
being scary.
I think we can all agree that among the Classpath devs and among the
Harmony devs there's plenty of goodwill in theory but also a fair
degree of disillusionment that the hoped-for level of cooperation
wasn't able to materialize.
But improving Japitools and having a better understanding of what it
does and doesn't do is in the best interests of both projects - and
other projects that might want to use it.
Japitools isn't affiliated with Classpath btw, I had Classpath in mind
when I originally developed it, yes, and it's GPL licensed because I
have a mild preference for that license, but I don't feel strongly
about it. One of the reasons I started a Japitools list in fact was to
try to have some neutral ground for discussions to avoid any
perception (or, even worse, reality) that Harmony had any kind of
second class status.
While I admit that coming from the Classpath side of the fence
originally, I have mixed feelings about whether the licensing
differences were actually worth starting a whole separate project for.
But Harmony exists and I hope it succeeds, just as I hope Classpath
succeeds. More interoperable implementations can't hurt. And the
"interoperable" part is where Japitools comes in.
So can we all play nice? ;)
Stuart.
--
http://sab39.netreach.com/
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano <at> apache.org> writes:
> Don't know about you, I would call that a resounding success for those
> like us who wanted the ability to see the results of the FOSS
> development and innovation model applied to the inner workings of a Java
> virtual machine.
>
> And, if in doing so, a more compatible GPLv3 comes along, helped by
> those like us who would enjoy more license compatibility between the ASF
> and the FSF, I call that a success as well.
>
> So, yes, maybe we could have done it differently, in a more neutral
> ground. But even so, it wasn't so bad after all
Absolutely. I think we've all won. Not in the way we expected, I guess, but
nevertheless, we've managed to change several important things substantially for
the better.
keep up the good work,
dalibor topic
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano <at> apache.org> writes:
>
>> Sometimes some climbers manage to get to the other side to find that
>> some people are very welcoming and appreciative of cultural differences
>> while others not so much.
>
> What killed Harmony as the project it was planned to be wasn't people, in my
> opinion. Everyone put a lot of effort into it.
>
> It was stuck in time for months, betwen a non-existent GPLv3, and a non-existant
> ASF third party license policy, without either the ASF having the ability to
> accept code under anything other then the apache license, and the FSF having the
> ability to relicense Classpath to apache license exclusively, without screwing
> developers of GPLd VMs out of a class library. Everyone was running in circles.
>
> Both the ASF and FSF have learned from that failure. ASF figured out that having
> a third party license policy would work greatly in their favour, the FSF figured
> out that they'd better listen to ASF's ideas and make sure GPLv3 and all that
> stuff is actually fine.
>
> Structurally, I'd say that the ASF was not the right place at the right time to
> pull such a project off, since we got stuck so hard on apparently insurmountable
> issues of policy. Same would have most likely happened with the FSF, though, so
> with the hindsight, I think a third party, neutral ground without policies
> already cast in stone would have worked out much better. I guess Sun figured
> that out, too, and I hope they are successful.
>
> After the Harmony experience, I don't think that ASF or FSF are the perfect
> place for a project that goes wildly beyond their respective constituencies
> (i.e. the people who really, really like the one true apache way or the one true
> FSF way). On the other hand, the split has worked in each project's favor, to
> some degree. It has also left a lot of people who put their heart in it rather
> bitter about the failure to make it all work as planned.
>
> Maybe one day we'll all meet together and exchange those war stories over
> beverages in bar. It's been a great pleasure to help get all of this rolling
> with you, Geir, Leo, Davanum, and the other guys, and watch Geir and the team
> make Harmony rock.
+100!
But there is one thing to be said: I still believe that both the ASF and
the FSF have much stronger community nurturing skills than Sun.
Sun going GPL is not going to change that *and* will allow "free java"
to get to certification faster.
So, pretty soon, there will be three, not one, certified FOSS java
virtual machines.
Don't know about you, I would call that a resounding success for those
like us who wanted the ability to see the results of the FOSS
development and innovation model applied to the inner workings of a Java
virtual machine.
And, if in doing so, a more compatible GPLv3 comes along, helped by
those like us who would enjoy more license compatibility between the ASF
and the FSF, I call that a success as well.
So, yes, maybe we could have done it differently, in a more neutral
ground. But even so, it wasn't so bad after all :-)
--
Stefano.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano <at> apache.org> writes:
> Sometimes some climbers manage to get to the other side to find that
> some people are very welcoming and appreciative of cultural differences
> while others not so much.
What killed Harmony as the project it was planned to be wasn't people, in my
opinion. Everyone put a lot of effort into it.
It was stuck in time for months, betwen a non-existent GPLv3, and a non-existant
ASF third party license policy, without either the ASF having the ability to
accept code under anything other then the apache license, and the FSF having the
ability to relicense Classpath to apache license exclusively, without screwing
developers of GPLd VMs out of a class library. Everyone was running in circles.
Both the ASF and FSF have learned from that failure. ASF figured out that having
a third party license policy would work greatly in their favour, the FSF figured
out that they'd better listen to ASF's ideas and make sure GPLv3 and all that
stuff is actually fine.
Structurally, I'd say that the ASF was not the right place at the right time to
pull such a project off, since we got stuck so hard on apparently insurmountable
issues of policy. Same would have most likely happened with the FSF, though, so
with the hindsight, I think a third party, neutral ground without policies
already cast in stone would have worked out much better. I guess Sun figured
that out, too, and I hope they are successful.
After the Harmony experience, I don't think that ASF or FSF are the perfect
place for a project that goes wildly beyond their respective constituencies
(i.e. the people who really, really like the one true apache way or the one true
FSF way). On the other hand, the split has worked in each project's favor, to
some degree. It has also left a lot of people who put their heart in it rather
bitter about the failure to make it all work as planned.
Maybe one day we'll all meet together and exchange those war stories over
beverages in bar. It's been a great pleasure to help get all of this rolling
with you, Geir, Leo, Davanum, and the other guys, and watch Geir and the team
make Harmony rock.
till then,
dalibor topic
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
David Gilbert wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> The only real issue that we had is license incompatibility, but I
>> thought there was goodwill everywhere to work where we could.
>>
>
> Why don't we be honest and just admit that there is no goodwill between
> the projects? It was there, briefly, but now it is gone. There's no
> collaboration, there's no cooperation...just two separate projects
> implementing the same API. It is the way it is, and the world is moving
> on...but let's stop pretending.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Gilbert
> JFreeChart Project Leader
>
> P.S. This is a personal opinion, but I'm happy to disclose that I'm an
> occasional contributor to the GNU Classpath project.
Hmmm, let's analyze my 'pretending'...
1) I started a 'kaffe + classpath' gump run as a way to help myself and
them understand how far along in the 'real world' java implementation
they were.
2) I spent several hours on the phone and more emails that I can count
over more months that I would like to count discussing ways to change
licensing impedance mismatch in both camps, with several representatives
from the ASF, the FSF and the "free java" community. NOTE: I was an ASF
board member at that time.
3) Once it was clear that a major change in the GPL was the only viable
alternative, concerned about the fact that continuing harmony might have
impacted Classpath negatively, I asked my "free java" peers for advice
and they *all* suggested me to go ahead, that more free java was always
a good thing. I was ready to drop my mentoring support for Harmony if
that wasn't the case.
4) I'm subscribed to the japi list to help out (did I mention I didn't
ask for a license change?)
And, last but not least, should I not outline the fact that a licensing
bridge between classpath and harmony would only go *in benefit of
classpath* since there is no way the ASF would allow harmony to be
licensed under the GPL?
In short: there are two valleys and a huge mountain in between.
A tunnel is being built and it's called GPLv3, but it will flow in only
one direction: from our valley to yours. The people of my valley are
happy that the other valley existing and prospering and are even happy
with the fact that the *other* valley will benefit more from the tunnel
than they will. There is competition, but it's healthy and respectful.
We did try to find a pass and build a road, we tried, *hard*, we didn't
find one so we moved on with our lives, wishing each-other best of luck.
Sometimes some climbers manage to get to the other side to find that
some people are very welcoming and appreciative of cultural differences
while others not so much.
--
Stefano.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by David Gilbert <da...@object-refinery.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> The only real issue that we had is license incompatibility, but I
> thought there was goodwill everywhere to work where we could.
>
Why don't we be honest and just admit that there is no goodwill between
the projects? It was there, briefly, but now it is gone. There's no
collaboration, there's no cooperation...just two separate projects
implementing the same API. It is the way it is, and the world is moving
on...but let's stop pretending.
Regards,
Dave Gilbert
JFreeChart Project Leader
P.S. This is a personal opinion, but I'm happy to disclose that I'm an
occasional contributor to the GNU Classpath project.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Stuart Ballard wrote:
> On 11/7/06, Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> > (Yes, the japitools list is on an FSF server. I really really hope
>> > that this isn't going to be a political problem for you guys. I
>> > selected Savannah for hosting japitools before Harmony even existed,
>> > because it made most sense at the time when Classpath developers were
>> > the main users. Please don't let that hinder our ability to
>> > communicate on something that makes sense for all projects concerned)
>>
>> you kidding? of course I'll join.
>
> I'm never quite sure. Some of the politics between the Classpath and
> Harmony projects have been quite scary from my point of view.
I dont' think we care where tools are and what the license is. For
example, I understood that the Classpath peeps were using our swing/awt
tests (which is really cool!)
The only real issue that we had is license incompatibility, but I
thought there was goodwill everywhere to work where we could.
geir
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Stuart Ballard wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> David Gilbert wrote:
>> > A boon? Not at all, Classpath will be (mostly) redundant and will fade
>> > away, replaced by Sun's runtime.
>>
>> I'm not so convinced of that. GNU Classpath is under GPL + Exception,
>> so arguably it's not viral to things that link with it.
>
> I think it's highly unlikely Sun will release their VM without terms
> that enable proprietary code to be built on top of it. That'd be
> particularly counterproductive of them.
>
> My speculation would be that they'll release it under two licenses,
> one similar to the terms they have now, and the GPL as the other. Code
> released under those terms is clearly not viral.
Yes, they will clearly do that - offer a license that allows proprietary
implementation. However, that license won't be free or open source.
>
>> Also, I think the copyright assignment requirement will be a big deal.
>
> If OpenOffice is anything to go by, Sun will require a copyright
> assignment to them; Classpath requires a copyright assignment to the
> FSF. Yes, that's a little bit different because a lot of developers
> will trust the FSF a lot more than they do Sun...
And Sun is a commercial entity, with a responsibility to it's
shareholders, not to a non-profit charter.
>
> I actually think it'd be really smart of Sun to not require a
> copyright assignment at all, but rather require contributing
> developers to license their code under *both* sets of terms just as
> Sun itself does. That would allow Sun to continue to use the dual
> licensing scheme without the stigma of the copyright assignment
> requirement. And it's very similar (in spirit, if not in details) to
> the model that Mozilla has used for years - originally to allow
> Netscape to make proprietary releases based on the contributed code.
Sure - but their second license won't be an open source one.
>
> As far as the suggestion elsewhere in the thread (that I lost, digest
> mode subscription is painful ;) ) that the GNU people would feel it
> necessary to fork Sun's Java entirely to maintain their sense of
> freedom, I don't think this is so. The FSF have fairly strong
> philosophical disagreements with Linus but have never forked the
> kernel. They have philosophical disagreements with the ASF sometimes
> but there isn't a GNU fork of the Apache webserver. I think a GPL'd
> Java would be considered acceptable - because the license allows the
> *option* of a fork if Sun proves to be a sufficiently poor steward.
> But I've never heard of a project being "preemptively" forked on the
> offchance the maintainer will make unacceptable decisions in the
> future. At least I've never heard of such a fork having even the
> slightest success.
Sorry if you misunderstood me. I didn't meant to suggest that they
would - I was probably speculating that it was one possible solution -
someone could fork the codebase if they wanted to avoid having to assign
joint copyright.
>
> A lot depends, of course, on how Sun actually engages the community -
> I'd say that's even more important than the license, as long as the
> license isn't *completely* un-work-withable.
yes - agreed
>
>> Understood. For me, an additional requirement is an open and level
>> community, where all participants are working together under exactly the
>> same terms. (Which is where GNU Classpath will be different than what I
>> understand the Sun model will be)
>
> I don't consider it a foregone conclusion either way as to whether
> Classpath will or won't continue with any enthusiasm if Sun's
> implementation is released under an acceptable license and with an
> acceptable process for getting contributions back in. There's a lot of
> momentum behind Classpath right now but it might be hard to justify
> all the effort to get from (essentially) complete 1.4 and parts of
> 1.5, to parity with Sun's 6.
>
> Either way we live in interesting times :) And either way Sun's
> release under *any* open source license is a very good thing.
Indeed!
geir
>
> Stuart.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by David Gilbert <da...@object-refinery.com>.
Stuart Ballard wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> David Gilbert wrote:
>> > A boon? Not at all, Classpath will be (mostly) redundant and will
>> fade
>> > away, replaced by Sun's runtime.
>>
>> I'm not so convinced of that. GNU Classpath is under GPL + Exception,
>> so arguably it's not viral to things that link with it.
>
> I think it's highly unlikely Sun will release their VM without terms
> that enable proprietary code to be built on top of it. That'd be
> particularly counterproductive of them.
>
> My speculation would be that they'll release it under two licenses,
> one similar to the terms they have now, and the GPL as the other. Code
> released under those terms is clearly not viral.
>
>> Also, I think the copyright assignment requirement will be a big deal.
>
> If OpenOffice is anything to go by, Sun will require a copyright
> assignment to them; Classpath requires a copyright assignment to the
> FSF. Yes, that's a little bit different because a lot of developers
> will trust the FSF a lot more than they do Sun...
>
> I actually think it'd be really smart of Sun to not require a
> copyright assignment at all, but rather require contributing
> developers to license their code under *both* sets of terms just as
> Sun itself does. That would allow Sun to continue to use the dual
> licensing scheme without the stigma of the copyright assignment
> requirement. And it's very similar (in spirit, if not in details) to
> the model that Mozilla has used for years - originally to allow
> Netscape to make proprietary releases based on the contributed code.
>
> As far as the suggestion elsewhere in the thread (that I lost, digest
> mode subscription is painful ;) ) that the GNU people would feel it
> necessary to fork Sun's Java entirely to maintain their sense of
> freedom, I don't think this is so. The FSF have fairly strong
> philosophical disagreements with Linus but have never forked the
> kernel. They have philosophical disagreements with the ASF sometimes
> but there isn't a GNU fork of the Apache webserver. I think a GPL'd
> Java would be considered acceptable - because the license allows the
> *option* of a fork if Sun proves to be a sufficiently poor steward.
> But I've never heard of a project being "preemptively" forked on the
> offchance the maintainer will make unacceptable decisions in the
> future. At least I've never heard of such a fork having even the
> slightest success.
>
> A lot depends, of course, on how Sun actually engages the community -
> I'd say that's even more important than the license, as long as the
> license isn't *completely* un-work-withable.
>
>> Understood. For me, an additional requirement is an open and level
>> community, where all participants are working together under exactly the
>> same terms. (Which is where GNU Classpath will be different than what I
>> understand the Sun model will be)
>
> I don't consider it a foregone conclusion either way as to whether
> Classpath will or won't continue with any enthusiasm if Sun's
> implementation is released under an acceptable license and with an
> acceptable process for getting contributions back in. There's a lot of
> momentum behind Classpath right now but it might be hard to justify
> all the effort to get from (essentially) complete 1.4 and parts of
> 1.5, to parity with Sun's 6.
>
> Either way we live in interesting times :) And either way Sun's
> release under *any* open source license is a very good thing.
>
> Stuart.
+ 1 to all that Stuart just said.
Regards,
Dave Gilbert
Re: [Fwd: Re: Interesting discoveries playing around with japitools]
Posted by Stuart Ballard <st...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> David Gilbert wrote:
> > A boon? Not at all, Classpath will be (mostly) redundant and will fade
> > away, replaced by Sun's runtime.
>
> I'm not so convinced of that. GNU Classpath is under GPL + Exception,
> so arguably it's not viral to things that link with it.
I think it's highly unlikely Sun will release their VM without terms
that enable proprietary code to be built on top of it. That'd be
particularly counterproductive of them.
My speculation would be that they'll release it under two licenses,
one similar to the terms they have now, and the GPL as the other. Code
released under those terms is clearly not viral.
> Also, I think the copyright assignment requirement will be a big deal.
If OpenOffice is anything to go by, Sun will require a copyright
assignment to them; Classpath requires a copyright assignment to the
FSF. Yes, that's a little bit different because a lot of developers
will trust the FSF a lot more than they do Sun...
I actually think it'd be really smart of Sun to not require a
copyright assignment at all, but rather require contributing
developers to license their code under *both* sets of terms just as
Sun itself does. That would allow Sun to continue to use the dual
licensing scheme without the stigma of the copyright assignment
requirement. And it's very similar (in spirit, if not in details) to
the model that Mozilla has used for years - originally to allow
Netscape to make proprietary releases based on the contributed code.
As far as the suggestion elsewhere in the thread (that I lost, digest
mode subscription is painful ;) ) that the GNU people would feel it
necessary to fork Sun's Java entirely to maintain their sense of
freedom, I don't think this is so. The FSF have fairly strong
philosophical disagreements with Linus but have never forked the
kernel. They have philosophical disagreements with the ASF sometimes
but there isn't a GNU fork of the Apache webserver. I think a GPL'd
Java would be considered acceptable - because the license allows the
*option* of a fork if Sun proves to be a sufficiently poor steward.
But I've never heard of a project being "preemptively" forked on the
offchance the maintainer will make unacceptable decisions in the
future. At least I've never heard of such a fork having even the
slightest success.
A lot depends, of course, on how Sun actually engages the community -
I'd say that's even more important than the license, as long as the
license isn't *completely* un-work-withable.
> Understood. For me, an additional requirement is an open and level
> community, where all participants are working together under exactly the
> same terms. (Which is where GNU Classpath will be different than what I
> understand the Sun model will be)
I don't consider it a foregone conclusion either way as to whether
Classpath will or won't continue with any enthusiasm if Sun's
implementation is released under an acceptable license and with an
acceptable process for getting contributions back in. There's a lot of
momentum behind Classpath right now but it might be hard to justify
all the effort to get from (essentially) complete 1.4 and parts of
1.5, to parity with Sun's 6.
Either way we live in interesting times :) And either way Sun's
release under *any* open source license is a very good thing.
Stuart.
--
http://sab39.dev.netreach.com/