OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
aph at redhat.com
Mon May 9 10:01:12 UTC 2011
On 09/05/11 10:55, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
>> There are some disagreements about mixed-licence projects. These
>> have always been controversial. Let's please respect each other's
>> views, even when we disagree, and continue this discussion with
>> politeness and friendship. Please let's remember that we're all
>> on the same side.
> Of course.
> I only jumped on this thread after reading peace-inspiring comments like:
> 1."this so called "governing board"
> 2. "trying very hard not to just have to give up on OpenJDK and /fork away/"
> 3. "People who want all their code to be free work on other projects."
> 4. "I personally would not make any significant contribution of work
> [to OpenJDK]", and
> 5. "I wouldn't be contributing to [OpenJDK] if I wasn't being paid to do so".
Well, 3 is obviously true, and 4 and 5 are personal statements and
therefore not open to dispute. I don't much like 1 and 2 either.
But, when we're tempted to fight fire with fire, it helps to
remember that the professionals use water.
> ...which made me think Oracle was getting an undeserved bad rap, and
> suspect for a moment that there were hidden agendas at play.
I assure you that there are no hidden agendas. Everyone here speaks
their mind freely. Sometimes too freely, IMO. :-)
> I´ll happily give you the benefit of the doubt, if you say we´re all
> in the same side vouching for the progress of OpenJDK as a FOSS
> project... agreeing that Oracle is in its right to dual-license
> OpenJDK if they so wish.
I have seen no-one dispute that. The question is not what is their
right to do, but what they should do.
More information about the discuss