Re: mini vote

[Stuart Ballard]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:45:31AM -0400, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> > [...]
> > Transvirtual has been good to the free software community, so we don't
> > want to interfere with their business model". Personally, I don't think
> > that just because a company has been good to free software entitles them
> > to a perpetual "non-compete" agreement from the rest of the community -
> 
> I do agree with you here, but why should we now switch companies?
> Cygnus/RedHat has been good to the Free Software community but they
> also didn't license their implementation of the AWT under the LGPL.
> Since they refuse to do that should we now change our license again
> because it is more convenient for them?

Because Cygnus/RedHat are working on this project. Transvirtual aren't.

IMO, licensing decisions should be made from the point of view of trying
to further the project's goals. Licensing in a way that Cygnus/RH can
use means they may contribute code, and thus we benefit. Licensing as we
are now, Kaffe and Transvirtual benefit, but we don't benefit in any way
- we aren't getting any help from Transvirtual regardless of how we
license.

(IIRC, we made overtures to the Kaffe/Transvirtual folks early in the
project about merging our class library work. Nothing ever came of it
because our licensing decisions (LGPL at the time) was incompatible with
their choice of licensing and neither group was willing to move to the
licensing the other was using. Someone please correct me if I've
misrepresented the discussions...)

Stuart.