On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 13:56 +0000, theUser BL wrote: > If you write completly classes for GNU Classpath at your own and they don't > depend on other GNU Classpath specific files, it would be nice, if you would > also publish it under the Apache License 2. > I think it would be nice, to bring the Harmony- and GNU Classpath-project > more together. Well, in the views of this developer: It would be nice if Apache Harmony chose to use my code under the terms of the License I've put it under. The license is not incompatible with theirs, and it was offered under that license when they started that project. However, they did not want that license. They didn't really want to discuss alterations to that license either, even though it was offered. The reason for that was that, in practice, what it was all about was that the Apache Harmony folks didn't want my code. Sure, they'll take it if I hand it over unconditionally, but they're not prepared to discuss terms with me or anyone representing me. But basically they wanted their own class library and total control over it. They didn't say it outright, but tended to refer to licensing, VM interfaces, and fancy but meaningless pictures and abstract designs showing equally abstract problems with Classpath. Or by referring to made-up "rules" on how ASF projects can't have non-ASL dependencies. This was all a smokescreen for the actual reality that Harmony never actually intended to use GNU Classpath, although they did manage to convince some of us that they would.. At least, for a while. So while Geir Magnusson may have given pretty speeches about "working with the community", his definition of that phrase is "How much code are you prepared to hand over, no strings attached?". Unfortunately, some people though that he meant "working with" as in a give-and-take process, involving compromises and negotiation. They also believed that meant being upfront and honest about your intentions and motives. Those people are pretty disappointed today. So, what you're suggesting here is that, because I'm "nice", I should go ahead and give them what they want. And what they want, given that they don't want our code under its existing license, nor do they seem prepared to discuss the matter, is that we either relicense under the ASL or simply fuck off. Personally, I don't really feel very inclined to doing that. After being mislead and basically having my concerns ignored, why should I? The misleading is an ongoing process, as you can see by Geir's list post. He's quite the politician. Lots of pretty words, but never any concrete proposals or straight answers. Read his post closely. Do you see any proposals on HOW we should work together? On WHAT we can do to work together? Saying that individual developers can do what they want with their code is not an answer for either his project our ours. Anyone can say "I'd really like it if we could all work together". Who would disagree with that kind of sentiment under any circumstance? But as under any circumstance, what the REAL question is: What compromises are you prepared to make to work together? /Sven (who's opinions aren't necessarily representative)
