Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Here's my understanding on these issues:
>
> "Java" must be used as an adjective when refering to your
> work. "Java Compatible" cannot be claimed unless you pass
> the JCK (and apparently have licensed the JCK to have
> passed it.)
>
> Use of the name "Java" can be controlled because it is a
> Sun Trademark.
>
> If you lose your clean room status, you are like a
> house of cards. Be careful about an army of guys working
> concurrently with code from Sun.
One reason I'm hesistant to contribute to classpath I often must look at Sun
code : (
I work in embbeded systems I did not interpet the LGPL to prevent me
from using classpath since I did not interpet the LGPL as Paul Fisher did.
And he may be correct about the license. Wich is a real bummer for me.
On many occasions I have wanted to use and contribute to a Open Source product
but many times the interpetation of the License makes this difficult.
There seems to be no way for a company to get a "official" interpetation of
the GPL
and LGPL under various conditions. Every now and then RMS will "rule" on a
issue.
This is not good for promoting the GPL and LGPL inside a company.
If the FSF had some way to interact legally with a Company over interpetation
of the GPL and LGPL
it would be very nice. I for example have never felt clear on how they
apply to java.
>
>
> Dick
>
Thats one problem with the LGPL and GPL. Its hard to "mix" code.
If I license any other code from two diffrent sources under "normal" licenses
I
do not have this problem.
If classpath was actually was complete and robust then I would not have this
problem either : )
