>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> The AWT files that are part of the GCC release are GPL'd. The Paul> licensing information at the top of such files is incorrect. Mark> Are you sure the libgcj people know about this?!?! This is a recent development. Mark> If anybody had clued me in that both versions were actually Mark> under the same license I could have started merging a long long Mark> time ago! (Although working on a GPLed implementation now that Mark> we have a AWT implementation under a Apache style license Mark> available, which Acunia seems to want to actually make GPL Mark> compatible, does not make much sense to me anymore.) I think merging is still premature, since I dispute RMS' interpretation of the libgcj AWT license. I also dispute the contention that a GPL AWT is usable by random code. I don't see how that can be. Mark> Could you please explain how AWT is defined? I've always assumed it means `java.awt.*', including sub-packages. Tom _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
