Re: Apache Foundation to create an open source port of Java2 5.0

Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Ugh. More BSD zealots! We really don't need to divide our efforts on
> this... Obviously getting the TCK is a good thing, but reimplementing
> Classpath from scratch under a different license is definitely not a
> good thing. Except to a BSD zealot. It will slow down Classpath, which
> was doing pretty well in bringing the different implementations
> together, and it will result in it taking LONGER to get a good complete
> free java out there. Fortunately we're already pretty close to one.

Hi Matthew, hi Mika,

this is a slightly re-edited version of a mail I sent out to Matthew as 
a private reply, and as he asked me to forward it to the list.

As I've already posted on the Kaffe mailing list about Harmony at 
http://www.kaffe.org/pipermail/kaffe/2005-May/102422.html and the post 
contains a bunch of links to other people's opinions and cleanups for 
the curious reader, you may want to start with that.

Planet.classpath.org is the GNU Classpath developer rant aggregator, and 
it's been mostly positive on all that stuff, since the only real choice 
on the table is to use GNU Classpath. Call me confident. :)

private mail excerpt follows:

Given the size of the task, this gives the ASF an incentive to fix their 
license to be GPL compatible. A real incentive, not just some handwaving 
towards Kaffe. While Kaffe is pretty useful to get conversations 
started, there is a portion of folks in the world that regard it as a 
POS, effectively, that's not worth any effort. Hi Miguel, darling. :)

 From talking with various apaches (Axis, Gump, Geronimo, ...) for the 
last 6 months or so, I think that a lot of them do *not* have an 
anti-GPL stand, after all they are fine with their code being reused in 
anything else, so, while the GPL may not be their philophically perfect 
license of choice, it would be rather weird for the ASF-ers in general 
to want to collaborate with anyone *except* the GPL folks.

There are afaict no rational arguments for the ASF not to collaborate 
with the FSF and make their license GPL compatible. On a similar note, 
there should be no barrier to the FSF to make sure the ASF understands 
how the LGPL works wrt to programs written in the Java programming 
language, which they still seem to be confused and afraid about, in part.

We (some apaches board folks, mark, tromey, me, david turner from fsf) 
have been working on fixing the licensing misunderstandings and 
miswordings in the last 6 months, or so, via regular teleconferences and 
by meeting in person, etc. My gut feeling is that we are making progress.

Tromey & me see the licensing incompatiblities between CPL and GPL, and 
ASL and GPL as artificial gates preventing mixing free software in the 
java language, as it prevents us from  cooperating effectively (and 
given the size of the task there is little point in apache repeating our 
mistakes:). So mjw's, tromey's and mine 'world domination plan' for 
licensing is to fix the APL/GPL compatiblity, and then together with the 
apaches move on to fix the CPL/GPL thing.

 From the politicking side, Apache can pull way more weight with Sun, 
JCP and the other folks that were so far shy from participating in GNU 
Classpath. The badly written discussion proposal with 0 lines of code 
generated more interest into Classpath than anything I did with a 
million lines of code (from other people, mostly!) on Kaffe last year. :)

 From the VM design side, modularity and pluggability is where everyone 
ultimately wants to go anyway. We might as well try to find a forum in 
which the GPL-fearing people can participate on design, architecture and 
implementation, without closing us off from being able to use their code.

cheers,
dalibor topic
_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe