Paul Fisher wrote:
> Anthony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If we could all agree to switch to this license, then we could start
> > working on a plan to merge the two projects.
>
> If anyone wants to weigh in on the issue of switching to libgcc or
> libstdc++ terms for Classpath, now is the time to do so.
>
> I'd very much like to see the merger of our two projects happen.
Just to add my two cents. I would like to start using classpath in
commercial systems.
We would be willing to support or code parts of classpath to make it
suitable.
In the meantime I came up with the idea of mixing Sun and Classpath
packages together for
a intermediate solution. This is really no different form say using
Swing with classpath.
As each classpath package became stable we can replace the Sun one.
I think there are some serious licensing issues ????
If we were allowed by the various licenses I see no reason why we cannot
contribute to
the Classpath effort. It seems Suns new license simply require that the
JDK port pass
the JCK. This seems to be the real difference between Classpath and
Suns new license.
1.) I think Sun could probably enforce compliance for commercial use of
clean room implementations.
At the very least they can litigate.
Thus classpath will probably have to pass the JCK.
2.) Even if they cannot I think that classpath will eventually want to
pass the JCK.
Finally considering the flow of money into Open Software companies I
think that the financial cost of
getting classpath and say japhar through the JCK is not near the issues
it has been.
It makes sense to met that Redhat for example should pursue a good open
java solution for Linux
especially in there new embedded market acquired from Cygnus.
Comments.
Mike
