Brian, Bryce, (in alphabetical order)
thank you very much for your quick replies about my question concerning
classpath's license. I think this cleared things up and I can perfectly
live with the SHA class having the GPL+exception license.
Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> The SHA class (and most of the rest of classpath) is not GPL!! It uses the
> GPL+exception classpath license, which is actually less restrictive than
> the LGPL. I believe there should be no problem including it with an LGPL'ed
> library, or in fact a non-GPL application, provided that you follow the
> terms of the GPL _for the SHA class itself_.
This is perfectly okay, since I once chose LGPL to allow others to use
my ONC/RPC package even in proprietary applications, as long as they
make the RemoteTea package available (source and classes) to anyone
asking them. The reason I chose LGPL was that GPL was way too
restrictive and I did not want to "fork" the GPL with exception clauses,
probably rendering the whole new license invalid and/or unenforcable.
> The exception allows you to
> link classpath (ie: include it, in whole or in part) with whatever you like
> without the GPL applying to that code as well.
Fine. That's exactly what I need, I just asked to make sure that I can
do this.
> You can't go and change the license on the SHA class to be LGPL. That would
> effectivly be making the license more restrictive (taking away some
> rights) for your modified versions of the class.
I misunderstood the exception clause in that sense that it would
actually result in a license more restrictive than LGPL. So that's why I
asked. My intend was never to "upgrade" form classpath's license to a
more restrictive one, taking away rights.
Regards,
Harald
--
Harald Albrecht
Chair of Process Control Engineering
RWTH Aachen University of Technology
Turmstrasse 46, D-52064 Aachen, Germany
Tel.: +49 241 80-7703, Fax: +49 241 8888-238
_______________________________________________
Classpath mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
