On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > I don't get these GPL people who license their work as GPL, but don't
> > want the viral aspect...
>
> I believe that they are trying to separate the licensing of the source code
> vs. the binary. If you want to use their SOURCE, you have to keep th
> Certainly we need an official reading on
[http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/],
> but Classpath is specifically licensed as GPL, the least compatible
open-source
> license out there (not even a murkier LGPL).
The issues with GPL are well-known.
> The Classpath author adds an addendum to allo
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Serge Knystautas wrote:
> Certainly we need an official reading on this, but Classpath is
> specifically licensed as GPL, the least compatible open-source license
> out there (not even a murkier LGPL). The Classpath author adds an
> addendum to allow bundling of this library
Costin Manolache wrote:
Please also take a look at this: http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/.
The authors intend and believe that the exception granted allows that code
so licensed "can be used to run free as well as proprietary applications and
applets." I have spoken with Nic Ferrier about th
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM Public License
> > (the pre-Jakarta BSF, for example) and the MPL (Rhino). The following
> > public domain components are also approved: Antlr and Doug Lea's
> > concurrency package.
>
> > Lic
