On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:03:44AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Releasing the main code under GPL is ineffective, if the > .jar need proprietary software; in my understanding > the use of the GPL licence is incorrect; I think in > this case LGPL is the right type of licence.
That isn't true. Provided that we don't include a non-GPL'd JRE with our download, there is no violation of the GPL. If it were, then GPL'd software could only run on a GPL'd operating system. This is clearly not the case. > Anyway, till Freenet remains in java, dropping the Kaffe > compatibility IMHO is a fundamental mistake, both from > the point of view of free software and from the security. We should retain compatibility with the published Java spec which Kaffe is supposed to implement. It isn't our responsibility, however, to work-around or fix bugs in Kaffe which prevent it from working with Freenet - at best we have a moral obligation to report them, which we do. If you are a Freenet user frustrated by your inability to use Freenet with Kaffe due to a bug in Kaffe, then please direct your frustration at the Kaffe team, not at us. > The only other way to solve this problem is IMU, to > release a C (or other freely compilable/runnable language) > version I couldn't disagree more. If we want to re-implement for speed or other practical reasons, then that is one thing. But spending a vast amount of time that could be used to enhance Freenet, just because the Kaffe team won't fix bugs in their software is a complete waste of the money entrusted to us by our donors. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com] Latest Project http://locut.us/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ian/
msg06587/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
