[kaffe] Relicensing the Verifier, and Turning it On

[Dalibor Topic]

Chris Gray wrote:
> On Saturday 10 July 2004 20:58, Dalibor Topic wrote:

> Yes, in fact integrating Rob's code will be quite a major effort. Wonka has a 
> different object layout (we don't use handles), different stack layout, and 
> our data structures for classes, methods etc. don't resemble Kaffe's any more 
> than coincidentally. So any Kaffe-dependent code in the version Rob gave me 
> is just noise.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

>>I like the GPL quite a bit, myself. With that out of the way, I'd be
>>willing to relicense my own changes under a license that made sure that
>>I'd be still able to re-merge improvements back into kaffe. While GPL
>>guarantees that, that's unfortunately not helpful for Wonka. So, how
>>about GPL+linking exception, a la GNU Classpath? Would that be ok for
>>Chris?
> 
> 
> In this case I think it would be OK. I have a query outstanding with the FSF 
> about the Classpath licence, because I'm not too sure I know what constitutes 
> an "independent module" in Java. The verifier is an easier case, in that we 
> just have to agree amongst ourselves that other components of the VM (class 
> loader, interpreter, ...) are to be regarded as "independent". This would 
> need to be stated in the exception clause, as it's not obvious.

Okay, please keep us updated on how FSF interprets GPL+linking-exception 
. I, personally, regard the interpreter as largely [1] "independant" 
from the rest of the VM, which was part of the reasoning why I moved it 
into its own directory, away from the rest of kaffe core vm.

cheers,
dalibor topic

[1] Well, it has to interface *somehow* with the runtime in a runtime 
dependant way :) But that's going to be different for each runtime, 
unless we agree on a verifier API, so that we can interchage Rob's 
verifier, with, for example Tom's, or JustICE from BCEL. Stuff for the 
next Classpath hacker meeting :)