"Thomas Preud'homme" <robotux@celest.fr> wrote on 08/20/2011 04:11:08 PM
> 1/ About copyrights
> a) The directory docs/images contains several images, some of them
> being under
> CPL license (docs/images/fat-jalapeno-pepper-cropped-*.gif)
> according to their
> meta-information. Since there is no exception for this directory in
> LICENSE.html, are they to be considered all under EPL 1.0? It is my
> understanding that CPL is a bit more restrictive than EPL, hence if the file
> matching the pattern docs/images/fat-jalapeno-pepper-cropped-*.gif are really
> under CPL, I guess the whole archive is to be redistributed under CPL.

The copyright on those images is owned by IBM.  When we re-licensed all of Jikes RVM from CPL to EPL, I guess we missed some of the meta-data.  If you can tell me how to fix the meta-information to reflect that the images are licensed under the EPL, I will do it.

> b) Several files in testing/tests seems non-free to me, namely:
> - testing/tests/SPECjbb*/*.props
> - testing/tests/perf-jbb*/*.props
> - testing/tests/pseudojbb/*
> - testing/tests/javalex/qb1.lex.ref.classpath
> The first three seems to come from SPECjbb and not written by Jikes RVM
> contributors. But from what I understand, SPECjbb is non free so I'mnot sure
> it's fine (including for you) to distribute these files along Jikes RVM.
> The fourth and last item is copyrighted:
> 1999-2000 Toshihiro Horie
> 1999 Regents of the University of California
> On the webpage of Toshihiro Horie [0], we can read:
>  "I will make more of the sources available as this project
> progresses. All of
> the source and specification files are copyrighted by Toshihiro Horie and UC
> Regents. They may be modified or used only via the written consent of the
> author. However, the final project is planned to be released under
> the terms of
> the GNU Public License."
> [0] http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~horie/qbjc.html:

For Debian, perhaps the thing to do is for you to cut these directories out of the package.

> c) I wouldn't bother you about this if it was the only remark but since I'm
> already writing this email… In the directory userguide/, only the root
> index.html contains the EPL header. Do you confirm all of the files
> are covered
> by EPL? (I just need a ack on this)

Yes. they are under the EPL.  They are generated by exporting html from our wiki.  It might be possible to figure out how to include a EPL header in them as part of the export process, but the lack of a license header in the file is not intended to be significant.

> 2/ About dependencies
> a) Jikes RVM build system expect exact version match to build. Is this exact
> match in the versions really necessary or would a >= version be ok? If yes,
> I'll push a patch on my machine and will come back to you with a link to it.


Not sure.  May depend on the package.

> b) Jikes RVM currently build depend on Harmony or GNU classpath. Both of them
> are not packaged in Debian and I'd like (if possible) to avoid
> packaging them.
> gcj is packaged though and it seems gcj and GNU classpath sources
> are one now.
> One solution would be to use one of the package gcj-{4.4,4.6}-source which
> seem to contain GNU classpath. But I'd prefer Jikes RVM build to only build
> Jikes RVM.
> It is my understanding though that GNU classpath is only used for building
> glibj.zip (renamed as classpath.jar) and from that building rt.jar. I noticed
> that the packages gcj-{4.4,4.6}-jre-lib contain a file rt.jar quite close to
> the content of glibj.zip. Most of the classes are the same, except for 2
> additional *packages* in rt.jar, one of them being awt.
> c) My question is: would it work to use this rt.jar to replace both
> classpath.jar and rt.jar built from GNU classpath? If yes, would
> there be some
> consequences?

Jikes RVM patches the libraries and also configures their native code as part of its build process.  I would not expect Jikes RVM to work with a vanilla binary build of either GNU Classpath or Apache Harmony.  Sorry.