> (Although working on a GPLed implementation > now that we have a AWT implementation under a Apache style license > available, which Acunia seems to want to actually make GPL compatible, > does not make much sense to me anymore.)
Let me modulate this a bit (particularly as I won't be around much in the next four days, and I'm nervous about where this discussion may go without any real-world input). Firstly, although the blurb says "Full 1.1.8 AWT", this is also release 0.7.2, not 1.0. So whilst all of 1.1.8 is all on our roadmap somewhere in the near future, we're not there yet. See <URL:http://wonka.acunia.com/package-report/awt-package-report.html> for the state of the art here and now. Secondly, although I responded positively to Mark's suggestions regarding GPL-compatibility, it is still possible that our management would decide that protecting our trademark is more important, and that it is essential to have the trademark clause -in- the licence, not next to it. IANAL, TINLA, etc.. Of course we would love to have Mark working on our AWT 8->, the more so as the main thing standing between us and the advertised full 1.1.8 is the number of hours in the day. And I'm sure that our Rudolph is already much nearer to that target than any other code base you could use. Just don't everybody run away with the idea that the problem is already solved. Best wishes Chris Gray VM Architect, ACUNIA _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
