Which library implementation to use/work on?

Andrew Haley aph@redhat.com
Wed Mar 14 11:12:00 GMT 2012


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.



More information about the Java mailing list