From: Godmar Back (gback@cs.utah.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 07 1999 - 15:49:09 EST
Hi Tim,
I know you hate this, but you should really consider issueing a
short clarifying statement to this people, cc'ing the kaffe list.
In my view b) is clearly wrong: you can execute proprietary software
(as Alexandre pointed out) and you should signal your willingness to
accept contributions even if people aren't willing to sign their copyright
over TVT (assuming they meet the cleanroom criteria).
Maybe be more specific about what you would accept: explain TVT's interest in
having libraries they own supported. Jay told me that you complained to
him that kaffe doesn't attract enough developers. I think part of the
reason is that misconceptions like the ones voiced below stay out in the
open.
I think many people will understand that TVT will want to own core things like
java.awt., etc. --- but I personally would not have any problems with
getting things like java.beans or java.thelateststuffsunputinthejavanamespace.*
You won't convince hard-core RMS followers, but this is not your
target audience either. It's people who write one or two packages
(like javax.servlet.* and then decide which project to contribute to.)
In any event, I really do feel that a public statement concerning what
exactly TVT's policy in accepting contributions is would be necessary
and useful.
What do you think?
- Godmar
Forwarded message:
> From classpath-request@gnu.org Thu Jan 7 13:03:56 1999
> Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:08:28 -0500
> Sender: brian@lyta.nortel.net
> To: "Scott Came" <came.s@ghc.org>
> Cc: classpath@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: purpose of classpath
> References: <s69474d3.030@ghc.org>
> From: Brian Jones <cbj@nortel.net>
> Date: 07 Jan 1999 12:49:15 -0500
> In-Reply-To: "Scott Came"'s message of "Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:54:23 -0800"
> Message-ID: <m3ww2z7z38.fsf@lyta.nortel.net>
> Lines: 35
> X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.44/Emacs 20.3
> Resent-Message-ID: <"c77B-1.0.ss4.FuGbs"@mescaline.gnu.org>
> Resent-From: classpath@gnu.org
> X-Mailing-List: <classpath@gnu.org> archive/latest/1084
> X-Loop: classpath@gnu.org
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: classpath-request@gnu.org
>
> "Scott Came" <came.s@ghc.org> writes:
>
> > Please excuse this new-to-the-list question, but I was wondering how
> > the classpath libraries differ from those released with Kaffe. Is the
> > plan to create better libraries? Different/Additional ones?
> >
> > btw, I'd like to search for this kind of background info on a list
> > archive. Does one exist for classpath@gnu.org?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Scott
>
> We're different in that Kaffe's libraries are
>
> a) copyright Transvirtual - they can sell them under separate licenses
> b) licensed publicly as GPL - this means you aren't legally allowed to
> execute proprietary software with their libraries.
>
> Our libraries are
>
> a) LGPL - you can execute proprietary software with these libraries,
> these classes could potentially be used by a similarly licensed VM in
> say Netscape Navigator.
> b) copyright FSF - this is so the FSF can defend the copyright in a
> court of law if need be because all developers have already consented
> to this and signed over copyright to all works on GNU Classpath for $1.
>
> You can find an archive at http://www.classpath.org/archive/archive/
>
> Brian
> --
> |-------------------------------|Software Engineer
> |Brian Jones |cbj@nortel.net
> |cbj@gnu.org |http://www.nortel.net
> |http://www.classpath.org/ |------------------------------
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:31 EDT