incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Wielaard <>
Subject Re: Harmony: project purpose
Date Sat, 07 May 2005 03:31:27 GMT

On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 22:34 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> 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
> ( 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.

As GNU Classpath maintainer I must admit that I am not 100% happy with
how the announcement came out. 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

I do however acknowledge that some of the reluctance comes from my side.
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. That is why there are actually multiple lists
of "interested individuals", some people don't want to contribute to a
new code base that isn't acceptable to both the GNU and the Apache
community. But those people, like me, might still be interested in the
technical discussions around such a new code base (even though the
duplicated effort hurts to even think about).

> On 5/6/05, Simon Kitching <> wrote:
> > * 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?

Kaffe is currently in the process of getting access to the TCK:
> > * 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?

At least for the GNU Classpath project we have a special exception to
the GPL that we think balances the GPL copyleft terms against the need
to attract a wider community helping with the development and
enhancements to our core class library implementation.

If these terms are unclear or might stop certain people from
contributing to GNU Classpath we would like to hear about that.
We setup a wiki for discussion:

> > * That Kaffe/Classpath are somehow flawed and that it is necessary to
> > start again?

Obviously I don't think so. But if they are then I want to hear about it
(and fix it). That is why I am here.

> > * 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?

It might well be that adding Apache to a name automatically attracts
more contributors then adding GNU to it. If that is true and that would
be the only reason to discard all the work done so far I think I could
convince some people to add "Apache" to their project name and make use
of the apache hosting facilities. Although I believe the FSF savannah
systems are doing just fine.


Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!

Join the community at

View raw message