Re: Mauve license

[Stuart Ballard <stuart.a.ballard@gmail.com>]

On 2/16/06, Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> wrote:
> This can make sense if the Harmony tests are Harmony-specific.

Some are, some aren't. They plan to have a separation between the two
though. So Classpath will be able to use the non-specific part of
Harmony's testsuite.

> Otherwise I don't see what the point is.

The point is that, for whatever reasons (rational or irrational), some
people simply won't contribute to a GPL-licensed project. Some of
those people are Harmony contributors. If those people want to
contribute to a Java testsuite, which they do, it won't be Mauve as
long as Mauve is GPL.

> There may be no real reason it should be GPL, but in any case it is...
> so.. what's the problem with that? I mean, from a practical standpoint.

From a practical standpoint it's deterring a fairly large body of
potential contributors...

> But you seem also to be asking the religious question "why GPL"?

Not at all. I like the GPL. I think the GPL-with-exception license of
Classpath is the perfect license for what Classpath does. I use the
GPL on almost all my own code (although I prefer the LGPL for things
that are designed to be used as libraries).

Even RMS points out that using non-copyleft licenses can be beneficial
when it's a net gain for Free Software as a whole (eg Ogg).

And in this case I think there is such a gain, because the GPL is
buying us nothing (since there's no practical reason why anyone would
*want* to take Mauve proprietary) but costing us contributors.

I seem to be in a minority though, so I'll drop the issue I guess.

Stuart.

--
http://sab39.dev.netreach.com/