Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: javax.management

[Robert Schuster]

Fernando Nasser wrote:

> Nic Ferrier wrote:
> (...)
>
> > > O.S. developers had a preference to contribute under the GPL, I did 
> > > not think it would go as far as not be willing to contribute at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > It does in my case. I am very selective about who I help.
> >
> > I have often found it to be the case where ASF programmers will not
> > contibute to GPL or LGPL projects.
>
> Which is very disappointing.  All this Open Source/Free Software 
> community division based on licenses that are all supposed, and all 
> claim to be, for freedon, can only benefit the supporters of closed 
> proprietary software, which has many times the amount of money and man 
> hours to put on development.  That company who-may-not-be-named must 
> be enjoying this.

Hi Fernando,
please, dont be dissapointed. We GNU hackers have a certain feeling for 
freedom and some of us object to work on projects that do not share the 
same beliefs in freedom (which manifests in copyleft).

Let us not look only at the differences, but at what we have in common. 
If I have understand you correct, contributing under the (L)GPL would be 
your choice. However you are working on project with a more liberal 
license which is in my eyes a very good trait.

@Nic: You are perfectly right to reject working on a non-copylefted 
project, it is your decision. But please do not reject the people and 
their work in general.

There is far too much what we could achieve if we act in common. Having 
MX4J in GNU Classpath (at least as external project) would not only 
benefit our API completeness it would demonstrate that we (GNU) 
appreciate the work of others even if there is a discrepancy in our beliefs.

Dont get me wrong: If it where to me, everything had to be licensed 
under GPL, no LGPL and no exceptions, but I can apply this principle 
only when I write my own software.

But I regard the situation with MX4J the following way: Sun has 
integrated JMX in 1.5 and is using their own implementation (maybe based 
on MX4J who knows). The MX4J team has developed a fine piece of (Free) 
software for years. When more and more Java users move on to Java 5 this 
fine piece of software loses significance. Today GNU Classpath can 
decide to integrate the fine work being done on MX4J, giving the project 
a new life. If we chose to reject them because of license issues (which 
are solvable) I can feel that this must be like a slap into their face 
and the small spark of understanding these developers had for the 
ambitions of the FSF will be gone forever.

AFAIK the basis for Free software is ethical conciousness. Causing grief 
and discomfort cannot be in line with this conciousness.

Mark's mail was the best I have heard about this topic so far :-)

cu
Robert