incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Date Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:10:42 GMT

On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:36 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

> On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 2005, at 7:36 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>> may i suggest that a practical workaround for the issue (that  
>>> started
>>> this debate) would be to ask all contributors to use jira.
>> LOL.  Yes, we're going to use JIRA.  That's not the issue at all -
>> we're talking about the mailing list.
> why not ask anyone who posts a contribution significant enough to be
> copyrightable (AIUI very small patches just one or two lines probably
> are not) to submit it through JIRA?

We could.  However, one of the goals of harmony is a modular  
implementation architecture, I think quite a bit of presentation of  
code may be in situ for discussion purposes, as is natural.  I  
suppose we could ask that people also punch it into JIRA at the same  
time.  Sounds like a pain, though.

> once this becomes embedded as a social convention, the whole question
> of licenses for contributions through the mailing list would become
> moot.
> IMHO the whole concept of a default license for a mailing list is
> problematic. it's hard to see how we could ensure that users have
> given knowing consent.

Well, you won't be able to subscribe without seeing it, and the  
monthly reminders should help.  We should also put a footer on each  

> with the ASL2, apache is covered through the license but AIUI this
> does not extend to sublicensing?

Sure it does.

> . personally speaking, i do not accept
> new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
> boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache.

We won't either, and we probably won't from the mailing list anyway -  
we'd ask that this kind of contribution is made through JIRA.

Don't forget the core issue here (there's been a lot of participation  
in this thread that didn't seem to be aware of the goal... probably  
may fault for not being clearer...) : the core is that members of the  
GNU Classpath project and other GPL-based communities would have a  
problem using code that was on AL because of the FSFs claim that the  
AL2 and GPL are incompatible.  We were trying to solve that in a way  
that enables the broadest participation in our architecture /  
modularity work.

> it is very
> difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license to a
> mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
> and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
> little fuzzy legally.

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.


Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message