On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 04:19 +0200, Robert Schuster wrote: > Does 'them' mean the VM interface? If yes, then I do not see a problem. > IMHO we (=Classpath) should release the interface as MIT/X11 license or > even place it in the public domain. > > Would that be a feasible option?
IANAL. But as far as I'm concerned, an API is not copyrightable* in itself, so it's in the public domain to begin with. I'd personally prefer not to put a license on this, not only because it's redundant, but because Sun has expressed the legal fantasy that an API is copyrightable. And I wouldn't want GNU Classpath to take an action supporting that view, because in the same view Classpath is infringing Sun's copyrights. A better solution would perhaps to simply make a statement or affidavit on the status of the API saying: "We do not believe this is copyrighted." But let's leave that to FSF-legal. Kaffe is under the GPL and implements a lot of the Java class library APIs. Does that mean Sun's implementation infringes on the GPL? Or is it Kaffe which is infringing? And Linux is infringing on The Open Group's POSIX license. And so on and so forth. *Computer Associates International, Inc. versus Altai, Inc., (US 2nd Circuit 1992) frames the issue squarely. /Sven
