Unfortunately, legally isn't it impossible for a GPL'd project and an ASF'd project to *have* "synergies"?
If GNU (who presumably have a copyright on all the Classpath code) are willing to relicense under the APL, then that would work. Same for Kaffe (though probably more difficult unless Kaffe require copyright assignment as part of contributions as GNU do). But the proposal document doesn't state either. Without that, only general "design principles" can be shared between Harmony and these projects, which really isn't of much use in the Classpath case as the classes must adhere to the Sun TCK which must be pretty detailed on library class behaviour. Sharing design discussions with Kaffe developers may be somewhat more productive, but even so 90% of the work is in the code - which cannot be transferred to an APL-licensed project. This proposal seems *so* much work to reimplement stuff already done under the GPL (unless that code can be relicensed as described above). I'm curious to know what the benefit of all that work is.. Regards, Simon On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 22:34 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Simon, > > People working on Kaffe/Classpath are gonna advise us..see their names > on the proposal :) We (Apache Gump team) has been working with them > to make Kaffe/Classpath better for a while now > (http://brutus.apache.org/gump/kaffe/buildLog.html). Harmony is going > to increase synergies. We are working in parallel with FSF folks on > the licensing issues as well for while now. Please see the FAQ as > well. we are gonna leverage every bit of code and expertise that we > can to make this happen. > > -- dims > > On 5/6/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Can someone clarify for me why Harmony is being proposed when GNU > > Classpath, Kaffe and other projects are quite a long way to satisfying > > the goal of a Free Java environment? > > Is it: > > > > * That SUN is not expected to ever grant a free license to run the TCK > > for a GPL-licensed project, so the only way to get a "certified" free > > Java implementation is to ignore the existing GPL'd stuff and start > > again from scratch? > > > > * That you feel that more contributors will be involved in an > > Apache-licensed project than in a GPL-licensed project, resulting in a > > better overall end result? If so, why? > > > > * That you feel that the availability of an Apache-licensed project is > > important enough to duplicate all the existing GPL'd effort? If so, why? > > Who in particular wants an Apache-licensed implementation and can't > > accept a GPL'd one? > > > > * That Kaffe/Classpath are somehow flawed and that it is necessary to > > start again? > > > > * That because Apache is a well-respected player in the Java community > > that a project hosted at Apache will be so much better accepted that it > > is worth discarding all the Kaffe/Classpath work done so far? > > > > Regards, > > > > Simon > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
