When I wrote to Sven about the GNU Classpath Qt peers, I was doing under
the understanding that talking about the different FOSS Java
implementations was OK here, in the spirit of "harmony" that is being
pursued by the different project leaders.
I apologize if I started a snowball I shouldn't have started down the
hill at everyone else gathered here.
I agree with Sven that the final word on licensing for any project is
with the project leader. In the case of GNU Classpath, that's Mark
Weilaard. But I disagree that anyone else should be discouraged from
expressing their opinion, however flawed, on anything regarding
Classpath licensing.
That's too totalitarian a world view for me. And it does damage to the
encouraging discussion on licensing harmony going on. The licensing talk
should not be held completely behind closed doors. I'm not saying it
should be held completely in the open, but that some input from the
outside can be valuable. Input from the community which would benefit
from such licensing discussions, is and could be more valuable than it
is annoying.
PJ Cabrera
< pjcabrera at snapplatform dot org >
http://snapplatform.org
SNAP Platform - The only totally open
source integrated Java Dev Environment
http://snap.sourceforge.net
SNAPPIX - Live Linux CD Distro
with SNAP Platform pre-installed
