Mark Wielaard wrote: > I had hoped it would have more emphasized the fact that we would do > everything in our power to work out the philosophical, legal and > practical issues when reusing existing code for Harmony.
Well, I think it does try, but at this point it must be more important how we go on from here. :-) And your expression is an important part of that process. > I explicitly said that I would not contribute to any Apache licensed > project as long as code distributed under the (L)GPL and ASL couldn't > be mixed into a larger work. You are aware that the ASF and FSF are trying to address the issues, and this effort may help move that along. > At least for the GNU Classpath project we have a special exception And we're still trying to work out some issues with the FSF there. Unless there has been a breakthrough recently, we posed very specific use cases, and have as yet not gotten the necessary response. > Kaffe is currently in the process of getting access to the TCK: > http://www.advogato.org/person/robilad/diary.html?start=64 The aforementioned issues between GPL and AL aside, I am still trying to see how the TCK licensing restrictions are compatible with the GPL. According to the FSF licensing page, the Apache License is deemed by the FSF to be "incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL." So how much worse are the TCK licensing restrictions? For examples, see the modified version of the AL that has been drafted for dealing with JSR's: http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/JSR-LICENSE-2.0.txt. As I read things, it really does not seem possible to meet the requirements of both the GPL and the Java licenses. And any bending necessary to accept the TCK terms should help to address the AL issue as well. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
