On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:55:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > See above. This is really getting quite silly. We have strong reason to > > believe that the Kaffe folks *do not* interpret the GPL as contaminating > > things which are run within Kaffe (with the possible exception of things > > that use JNI calls to accomplish things which are not possible in other > > JVMs, if any such exist). > > Actually, the problem is that we don't. For some of the authors, we > have that information, but far from all of them.
Yes, actually, we do - but perhaps not in the way you're thinking.
*) The FAQ, which one would hope they have all read since it's still up,
and they're still authoring for it, basically says this.
*) The only participant to date, while only a single author, certainly
strongly affirms it.
*) Nobody has produced any statement from the contrary from any of them.
Given that #3 implies that the worst case we know of is 'neutral', and
we have one strong indication that they're OK with it and one flat-out
statement that they are by someone involved, I fail to see why we should
believe that this is not their intent until someone can document otherwise
in some suitable fashion.
I agree it would be *nice* of them to make it a moot point by updating
their licensing, but given that it can be a hassle, and the only one
talking considers it a no-op, I can see why they haven't bothered. I do
wish they'd reconsider this position, just to make everyone's life easier
in the long run.
--
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
