> The new Classpath license is GPL+exception which essentially makes it a
> weaker LGPL. You do not have to provide binary objects for relinking.
And is it possible to integrate it in commercial programs?
For example: Japhar is under the LGPL, because so it is possible to
integrate it
in Netscape or Mozilla, to run Applets.
Ok, Classpath is not linked with Japhar. You are right.
But, there existing too many GNU-Licenses.
Do you think that everyone read _all_ licenses?
I think that it is only ok, if there exists the GPL and the LGPL.
I don't think, that it's ok, to create more licences.
How many licnses do you want to create?
GPL, LGPL, your new license for Classpath, GNU FDL, ...
... and in the future there comes the FAL (frre audio licrense), FVD (free
videio license), ...
Why is it not possible, that gjc and Classpath creates together classes and
gjc put to their classes a filed called "LICENSE" in which the GPL stand
and
Classpath put to their classes a file called "LICENSE.LIB" in which the
LGPL stand?
Where is the problem?
Why do we need a new license?
Why is it not possible, that you publich the changes under your new license
_and_ the
LGPL for example.
I hate the FDL and now there comes a new GNU-license which is not under the
GPL/LGPL.
If you use something of Documents, which are under the FDL, you must write
the name of
the people, which have the first document written, in a seperated file.
If you use more then one Document, which is under the FDL, the people,
which have written
the documents before are all added in a seperated file.
So, the FDL ist _not_ like the GPL or LGPL!
(Bookes with no license are better, then the bookes, which are under the
FDL!
If I write documents, they are under the GPL).
And it is possible, that you can write more comments in a program like
code. And all is then under
the GPL. But if you publish it in a book and you kill the '/*' and '*/',
which mared the comments
and write the program-code cursive, you publish it under the FDL?
We don't need so much licenses!
Where is the problem to license Classpath under the LGPL ??????
I think that only the old Classpath, which under the LGPL was is
acceptable.
The newer one is uninteresting. And I hope, that all people, who makes
changes on Classpath
publish it under the new license _and_ (on there own homepage or on an
other side) under
the LGPL.
Patrick
