Brad Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The goal is to maintain the sources in java, but to build different > versions for different markets: a high-security version based on hardware > devices like the Java IButton, a medium-security version in which the java > is compiled to binary with gcj, and a low-security version as a java jar > file. > > As I understand the issues from the discussions on this list, some of the > proposals appear to grant FSF a license to the entire application if I > ever distribute the medium-security classpath-based version. Which would > obviously be immediately fatal to my plans.
I'm sorry for the confusion. Please ignore the AWT license issue because it is not resolved and any discussion now would have to be redone again after the FSF board makes their decision. Regarding other parts of Classpath and libgcj, I wouldn't expect any change in licensing. > Furthermore, the application is based on linkable java components I've > written that my customer's applications call. These calls would eventually > wind up calling classpath components. Would my customer's applications > wind up getting stuck to the FSF tarball? No. -- Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
