[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [kaffe] Using kaffe(GPL2) with other DFSG-compat licenses

W liście z pon, 05-08-2002, godz. 20:17, Jim Pick pisze: 
> I don't have any problems with using Kaffe with non-GPL applications.  I
> had an interesting discussion with John Gilmore wrt. GPL contamination
> across interpreter-application boundaries, and he adamantly felt that
> there was not an issue there.  And he should know, having founded
> Cygnus, with the business model of developing GPL'd compilers and
> interpreters.  He gave me the email of the FSF's lawyer, in case I
> needed any clarification.
IMHO it would be good to have lawyer opinion written sowewhere in public
place like some ml. I am not sure (people at debian-legal should know
better) but if that hasn't been said publicly yet - it would be

Especially if the lawyer you're talking about is from FSF and we can
count on that in his opinion that GPLed kaffe VM and it's libs can be
used with GPL-incompatible software.

> an implicit threat.  Transvirtual was shut down about 5 days ago, so I
> don't think "the threat" is really a big issue anymore, unless the
> people who now control the intellectual property want to make it into an
> issue.  I don't even know who the people who control the intellectual
> property are now (and I bet they know even less about what Kaffe is).
We should not depend on today-free-tomorrow-be-sued software I think.
Today's kaffe 1.0.7 is great step forward but before we do great
move of Java software from contrib to main (which can happen given
how many work is being put into kaffe lately) - we should have some
serious advice on licensing issue.

It looks messy for me ATM and in this state... it's hard to build on
moving sands... we need a rock.

> > For example, what if we had JVM from kaffe (GPLed) but used it with
> > gnu classlib (GPL+linking exception clause)? Does it change anything?
> In the worst case scenario, everything is GPL'd.  
If that's the case - most of us can forget about kaffe today.

> I'm not going to get upset about anybody running anything on top of
> Kaffe.  My view of the world is essentially GPL+(implicit Exception) -
> but I think I'd have trouble getting the license switched on Kaffe to
> say that.
I'd like to propose sth here, very seriously.

After reading what You said - I think you should switch the license of
every code that is added to caffe since today to for ex. GPL+linking

That fits because
1. You claim that you want kaffe to be used with GPL-incompatible
software (I don't think of non-free here, but Apache like)
2. Transvirtual doesn't exist anymore so you're more free to choose
the license you want for your code.
3. You claimed that you want to be more cooperation with gnu classpath
project, even to have all classpath work be done via that project - it
will surely make it much more possible. After some time - you would have
some parts only under new license (GPL+clause) which would allow direct,
both side exchange.

There's always the future we should look into...

Unfortunatelly that doesn't solve our today's problem. sigh.

> > For now Kaffe technically _may_ be the key to get _A LOT_ of Java stuff
> > from contrib to main. That's why clearing this out is so important.
> > Please elaborate.
> I personally take the position that Kaffe's GPL licensing does not
Sorry, but you know, that personal opinions have not much to do with
all that stuff, when you're not copyright holder.

But if that's what you really think - IMO you should change licensing
of new things you're working on for kaffe. State your opinion
clearly in the license - that's so easy :-)

> "contaminate" across the interpreter-application boundary.  So you
> should be able to use it anywhere you'd normally use Sun's JVM.  If you
> need some more clarification, I'd be willing to work with you and
> debian-legal to ask for an interpretation from the FSF's lawyer.
Yes, please do - I think that will be needed (if nobody objects).

FSF and Debian were always very close and if FSF's lawyer can assure
us about what we'd like to hear - it would be sin not to ask him to
say that in public =)

Seriously - IMHO we need good legal advice here from somebod that
understands Java. It should be stated publicly and once forever
so that we didn't have troubles later.

Best regards

					Grzegorz B. Prokopski

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: