On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:34:25AM -0500, 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.
Just a few little comments/questions:
Does this new license really make sure that the project will always be free?
As I read it someone could just link to the library and distribute the
resulting binary without any obligation to provide the source of the library
to the recepients. For a project as big as Classpath that isn't really an
issue since you could just get the original source from the FSF. But if
others are going to develop libraries based on this new license it might
happen that the original source code just disappears or is very hard to find.
I would really like it if I could just ask the person that gave me the
original binary to provide me with the source of the free libraries that
were used.
Please make sure there is some sort of fallback to the (L)GPL.
That way someone working on a project that is distributed under the normal
(L)GPL (Kaffe/Japhar?) can just incorporate a few pieces of code without
having to change the license for that complete project. (This is also a
feature of the LGPL, which can fallback to the full GPL when needed, that
seems very important to have in a Free Software license.)
What about all the portions of the project that depend on external libraries?
AWT depending on the GTK/Gnome libraries being the biggest example. Why would
somebody accept those libraries under the normal LGPL but not the rest of
Classpath?
I think it is very important that the complete copyright of the project
is assigned to the FSF. If there is any legal dispute I would be happy to
donate some money to the FSF to help fighting any legal battles. But not to
donate money to a commercial entity such as Cygnus/RedHat.
Not really license related. But I think it is important to keep using JNI.
CNI might be much nicer and faster, but JNI is a standard and it means that
other projects can use Classpath almost as is.
And the most important question: What would the new name be?
glibj maybe :)
> I'd very much like to see the merger of our two projects happen.
That would indeed be very nice. And the questions raised above should not
be seen as an indication that I think it is a bad idea.
Cheers,
Mark
