(1) with respect to Nic's code, for which he has copyright control
his clear and unambiguous public statement of how the license
is to be interpreted should be considered legally binding.
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/classpath/classpath/java/awt/ AWTError.java?rev=1.5&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
Um, no, he doesn't. Classpath's copyright is held by the FSF. As Nic said, his interpretations aren't legally binding at all. The only person who could give a legally binding answer is probably Eben Moglen as FSF counsel. I'm not sure that RMS could give a legally binding answer or that his answers would agree one week to the next.
Even then, I'd still like to ensure that our side is happy with any legal interpretations as well. I'd be reluctant to agree blindly with whatever the FSF says.
I won't debate other possible viral aspects, since they are not germaine to circumstances I have currently vested interests in. If Nic has references to clarify the FSF position on either of the above matters, that would be great.
He only clarified the viral aspects of the license wrt code not the distribution of the packages.
Section 6 of the LGPL limits (re)distribution only to those licenses that allow modification by the end user. Our license doesn't require that. Therefore, I believe this is the clause that concerned Roy more than anything else.
I believe Classpath has a special exception for distribution, but, AIUI, that isn't typical of FSF packages. -- justin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
