Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
"John Keiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Could somebody *please* speak up and say what the heck is the deal > with the AWT? Transvirtual depends on the ability to relicense their AWT under non-GPL'd terms to companies that are unable to use GPL'd code. If the FSF were to relicense the AWT under libgcc-like terms, this would undercut that stream of revenue for Transvirtual. Transvirtual has contributed a good deal of code to the free software community, and the FSF therefore decided upon a course of action that would harm neither the free software community nor Transvirtual. The AWT was therefore excluded from the libgcj merger agreement.
RE: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
Could someone explain the intent here, if not the motivation? If I package a compiled version of the AWT in a dynamic library, I can presumably still ship it with a proprietary application? If I link it in statically, the whole program must be covered by the GPL? If I use any part of the library other than the AWT, I'm fine either way? Hans -Original Message- From: Tom Tromey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 9:18 AM To: John Keiser Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Java Discuss List; Classpath Project Subject: RE: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation >>>>> "John" == John Keiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> Could somebody *please* speak up and say what the heck is the John> deal with the AWT? I do not remember ever hearing an John> explanation of that nonsense. Is there reasoning behind it? John> Perhaps because of the licensing of the native peers? Stallman was adamant that AWT not be relicensed under more liberal terms. It doesn't have anything to do with the native peers. You'll have to ask him if you want more details. Tom
RE: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
> "John" == John Keiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> Could somebody *please* speak up and say what the heck is the John> deal with the AWT? I do not remember ever hearing an John> explanation of that nonsense. Is there reasoning behind it? John> Perhaps because of the licensing of the native peers? Stallman was adamant that AWT not be relicensed under more liberal terms. It doesn't have anything to do with the native peers. You'll have to ask him if you want more details. Tom
RE: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
Could somebody *please* speak up and say what the heck is the deal with the AWT? I do not remember ever hearing an explanation of that nonsense. Is there reasoning behind it? Perhaps because of the licensing of the native peers? --John -Original Message- From: Tom Tromey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 2:50 PM To: Java Discuss List Cc: Classpath Project Subject: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation We're pleased to announce the relicensing of libgcj and Classpath. The new license, which will apply to all parts of both projects (with the exception of the AWT implementation in Classpath) will be the GPL, plus a special exception which allows its use in non-GPL applications. Ownership of libgcj will be assigned to the FSF. We intend to merge the libgcj and Classpath class libraries, choosing the best implementation of each class. In the end, libgcj will use Classpath (without AWT) as an upstream source for its class libraries. - The libgcj and Classpath hackers
Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
>> We intend to merge the libgcj and Classpath class libraries, choosing >> the best implementation of each class. In the end, libgcj will use >> Classpath (without AWT) as an upstream source for its class libraries. Artur> What with String and Character classes ? They both have quite Artur> specific implementations in gcj, which are impossible to do in Artur> java. Will there be treated just as other VM specific classes Artur> like Class or reflection classes, by putting them in separate Artur> dir ? I don't know the answers to these questions. Yes, there will be difficult problems. However, we can easily share 70% or 80% of the class libraries. If we can't share 20-30%, then that is too bad, but it is better than what we have now. Various solutions to the native code problem have been proposed. So far there doesn't appear to be a clear winner. Tom
Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
Tom Tromey wrote: > We intend to merge the libgcj and Classpath class libraries, choosing > the best implementation of each class. In the end, libgcj will use > Classpath (without AWT) as an upstream source for its class libraries. What with String and Character classes ? They both have quite specific implementations in gcj, which are impossible to do in java. Will there be treated just as other VM specific classes like Class or reflection classes, by putting them in separate dir ? Artur
