Ulrich, > so what about Sun's Java License? We're doing many imports of JDK public > APIs :)
I tend to agree. However, for teh record, APIs provided by the compilation environment as a default are typically exempt from the complex licensing situations. The GPL itself, however amazingly viral, grants exemption from viral infection to all things provided by the default compile out of the box. Thus the Windows API as provided by VC++ does not have to be GPL compatible in order for a so using application to be designated GPL. In Java a great example is the SAX API. Asit is shipped with the JDK, GPL software can use Xerces via it. The direct import of org.apache.* into a GPL source file is verbotten. Via the SAX API, it is just fine - because the coder could late swap a GPL & SAX compatible XML parser. Anyway, you ask abour rt.jar. Well, all license scenarios are typically generous for default runtime APIs. It is a different case for javax.servlet and other 'blessed' though. For those that really want to study the gotchas of licenses, look at MS's .Net licenses - various runtime restrictions. > Seriously, I don't want to spoil the party, but it sounds braindead to > me that we have to move our own, self-written code out of Apache, even > if everyone wants it to stay. - Paul __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
