Re: [Libjit-developers] Re: Libjit-developers Digest, Vol 15, Issue 2

[Gopal V]

Aleksey Demakov wrote:

> I guess the reason for libjit relicense is indeed an attempt to
> expand its audience by allowing its use by proprietary software.

No, the attempt is really to expand its audience to GPL incompatible
Free Software. Let me give you an example.

"""
Unfortunately libjit is pure GPL, so I doubt we’ll be including
this in libgcj, or even finishing it. Instead I think I’ll
investigate rewriting this JIT using LLVM instead.
"""

http://tromey.com/blog/?p=16

Tamarin (MPL) would be another likely candidate, which could put libjit
on every desktop - literally.

> Also, should the relicense happen, I do not think that Microsoft or
> Novell will jump into using libjit. So this is not going to hurt pnet.

More people using libjit is hardly going to hurt pnet, in any case.

The real question is whether it dilutes the purpose of libjit being
GPL in the first place - i.e to give a GPL'd project a leg-up over
proprietary projects (interesting, SUN JVM is GPL ... while gcj
isn't).

But as Tromey mentioned, LLVM is always an option for the proprietary
minded (Apple for instance).

> On the other hand, any additional libjit user will make it stronger,
> At the very least this will provide more testing thus ensuring
> its reliability.

The first person I discussed this with has been Rhys - but I
still wait for his reply on-list.

I classify.

[NOREPLY]
Rhys Weatherley

[<3 patches]
Miroslaw Dobrzanski-Neumann
Evin Robertson
Norbert Bollow
Avinash Atreya

[MINOR]
Thong Nguyen
Peter Lund
Yan Burman
Heiko Weiss


[YES]
Klaus Treichel
Aleksey Demakov
Radek Polak

[NO]
Kirill Kononenko
Thomas Cort

Cheers,
Gopal
--
If I learn from my mistakes, pretty soon I'll know everything.