From: Godmar Back (gback@cs.utah.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 09 1999 - 21:53:22 EST
>
> On Feb 9, 1999, Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> >> But then, Tim and Peter might not like that move. I'd appreciate to
> >> have input from them about this idea.
>
> > Also, Alexandre, think about what you're really saying here.
> > You're saying that we should abandon what is arguably the most advanced
> > effort to have free and usable class libraries because the people who
> > donated it to the community have the ethics that they don't sell
> > other people's work?
>
> No, I'm saying that they might not welcome the use of their disk space
> and CVS server to maintain part of a project that they can't take any
> benefit from. If they accept replacing Kaffe's Java Core Library with
> GNU Classpath's, that's great. If they do not, we have two options:
>
> 1) keep trying to duplicate the Classpath effort
>
> 2) branch off Kaffe and adopt Classpath.
>
> Neither option seems very good to me, but if Tim and Peter say `no' to
> adopting Classpath's work, we don't have any other...
>
If that's your position, you should consider leaving this Kaffe project
and start your own branch. The classpath project is looking for someone
to adopt classpath for kaffe anyway. I have an investment in Kaffe, and I
don't see any reason to use classpath. In fact, every time I checked out
their CVS sources and tried to build them, it failed in some automake
file for me. Go figure.
It is them who duplicate: classpath started in April 98, two months after
Tim announced that he was working on a free implementation. Kaffe's
development process opened up in March: this was before classpath even
existed! Kaffe's lib were released under the GPL on June 12. Where
was the classpath project then?
In August, I had discussions with some of the people in the classpath
project who accused Tim of dividing the "free software community"'s efforts.
This is ridiculous. The free software community is not synonymous with
the FSF: a project does not become a winner because it's the only endorsed
by the FSF. Look at Linux. Look at egcs.
The only reason that Kaffe did not receive the publicity it needs during
the last months was Tim and Peter's bad PR: namely that they left people
in doubt whether they'd steal the work they contribute. But they've
clarified their position since. I want us to get some advertisements
out to attract more volunteers, similar in form to the classpath's pages.
However, I would personally like it if donating code to
kaffe is an act that does not restrict your ownership of that code in
any way, which is not (quite as) true for classpath or other FSF-sponsored
projects, because of the FSF's agenda for what they call "social engineering".
Also, Tim & Peter have donated their disk space, reputation, man power and
webspace for the public VM so far *without* being able to sell the efforts
you or I put into it. I don't want this to be forgotten, just as you should
not forget that Kaffe wouldn't exist without Tim's effort at all.
So, I guess we do need a statement from Tim & Peter on whether they would
agree to host contributions to the class libraries from people who have
signed a cleanroom statement but who would refuse to assign the copyright
to TVT.
Clearly, there are legal issues involved. For instance, TVT would certainly
not spent legal resources to defend the GPL copyright of such portions in
court. That would certainly be out of the question. However, I personally
don't care. I don't like the GPL anyway. And TVT would still pursue
those violators that would use the portions to which they hold the copyright.
The same would go for the cleanroom status: TVT would only enforce the
parts they own. They could keep a paper track for the other parts,
but would not spent monetary resources on enforcing it. If that puts
the cleanroom status of the public version in danger, then that's a risk
I could live with.
The bottomline is that Tim & Peter have contributed a large amout of GPL'ed
code, that they appreciate the open source ideal, that they founded a
company that sponsors a free software project, that they don't rip off
their contributors, and that they do this without all the stupid
ideological ballast that comes with an institution like the FSF.
- Godmar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:58:03 EDT