On Wed, 1 Jul 2020, 14:28 Neil C Smith, <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm inclined to -1, but am curious as to the intention behind this > thread? I think if anything it's not useful for us to make that > blanket determination, because it has different meanings in different > contexts. And I think all of Matthias' examples apply. > > In the narrow scope of that thread and the GPLv2 and classpath > exception, that was adapted from GCC Runtime Library Exception, and I > believe the updated version of that now uses target code in place of > executable? > > I think in that case it should be considered in line with the text at > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html And from that > I think trying to determine this for that particular case other than > individual modules are *.java files and executables are their > resulting *.class files is going to end up being counterproductive. > OK, as prompted by Jaroslav off list, an actual -1. For the reasons already given. I still don't entirely understand the reason for seeking to narrow this down, but there is also the definition in the JVM spec - "Compiled code to be executed by the Java Virtual Machine is represented using a hardware- and operating system-independent binary format, typically (but not necessarily) stored in a file, known as the class file format." Or the Wikipedia entry on executable also offering "a file containing bytecode" as one definition. As far as I'm concerned, any compiled output of our sources, for whatever purpose, are our executables. Best wishes, Neil
