From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28325 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2012 11:12:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 28317 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Mar 2012 11:12:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:12:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2EBCYkZ003547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:12:35 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-151.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.151]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2EBCXtt031413; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:12:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4F607D21.1080900@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:12:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: java@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Which library implementation to use/work on? References: <1331721811.2573.0.camel@ladybug.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 On 03/14/2012 11:11 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: >>> I understand the reasons for this policy. However, as you are planning >>> on (eventually) replacing Classpath with OpenJDK completely, an >>> exception in this case would seem to make logical sense. The code will >>> end up not owned by the FSF no matter what. >> >> Well, no. The FSF will still own Classpath. > > Yes. But drawing a line in the sand and saying "after this point, we > no longer have the ability to relicense as we wish, but that's OK > because we don't care about this codebase anymore" seems prudent as a > migration strategy. We're not there yet. > My basic issue is, given license compatibility, reimplementing things > purely so the FSF has the option of relicenseing a codebase that it > probably never will is not a good use of time. In practice it just > means people won't submit patches because unless they're working on > AWT or some other library where copy/pasting code is hard, it never > makes sense to upstream patches. That in turn makes it harder for > people to benefit from those patches. Fair enough. Andrew.