And more 1.2 ClassLoader updates

Hi, This finishes the java code changes for java.lang.ClassLoader. I added comments to the top of the file that briefly outline how I think that the rest of the support should be written. Please let me know if you have ideas how this could be better/easier integrate with the various VMs.

vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

Hi, The classes in vm/reference all seem to be licensed under the LGPL. Is this right? This would mean that I cannot share these implementations with e.g. libgcj since they don't accept LGPLed code :( Cheers, Mark ___ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL

How does the classpath-commit list work?

Hi, How does the classpath-commit mailinglist work? I have this feeling that I do not get all the commit messages. If I look at the archives of January then I can see commits from Brian Jones, Tom Tromey and me, but I know that other people have also comitted code this month (e.g Warren Levy).

Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

Mark Wielaard wrote: The classes in vm/reference all seem to be licensed under the LGPL. Is this right? This would mean that I cannot share these implementations with e.g. libgcj since they don't accept LGPLed code :( If we are on the subject of licenses. Can anybody explain me a

Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

Artur Biesiadowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10-Jan-01 1:03:29 PM For me GPL is nice license, but only for standalone static programs. In today world, where everything is dynamic (and especially entire java) it is too strict to be useful. I don't want to start a licence war here because we all

Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

Mark Wielaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10-Jan-01 12:46:54 PM The classes in vm/reference all seem to be licensed under the LGPL. Is this right? This would mean that I cannot share these implementations with e.g. libgcj since they don't accept LGPLed code :( don't believe that is a correct

Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

Mark Wielaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, The classes in vm/reference all seem to be licensed under the LGPL. Is this right? This would mean that I cannot share these implementations with e.g. libgcj since they don't accept LGPLed code :( I think that's just an oversight we should

Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

Hi, On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:03:29PM +0100, Artur Biesiadowski wrote: If we are on the subject of licenses. Can anybody explain me a difference between GPL with special clause allowing linking versus plain LGPL ? The LGPL tries to give the users the freedom to modify and (re)distribute a

Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

Hi, On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:11:21PM +, Nic Ferrier wrote: If you develop a GPLed version of a standard javalib (say: javamail or swing) you can GPL the implementation code to stop other people stealing your implementation code for proprietary projects but you also enable normal

Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

Mark Wielaard wrote: [...modified GPL versus LGPL...] Thanks a lot - I know understand why modified GPL is used and it seems reasonable to me. I know that license discussions suck, but I think that we should reach a consensus with what can be made with non-modified GPL java code. I also think

RE: How does the classpath-commit list work?

Yes, please guys... I receive these at work - This was supposed to be a low priority mailing list. There's so much mail flying around at the moment :- I keep expecting flyers for skiing hols to arrive any minute. PLEASE CUT IT DOWN. ;-} Thank you kind regards Paul Russell Software Developer

Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

Artur Biesiadowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I know that license discussions suck, but I think that we should reach a consensus with what can be made with non-modified GPL java code. I also think that it is viral - you cannot do anything with it unless you also GPL your code. ... BTW,