Re: Classpath future?

[Stuart Ballard]

"Etienne M. Gagnon" wrote:
> 
> There are some difference, and these differences seem to be great enough
> for RedHat putting a Veto on the license choice.

I think at the time it was Cygnus, not Red Hat (I didn't think the
acquisition had gone through by then?) Cygnus have always been pretty
committed to free software and the GPL, and embedded systems were
*really* important to their business model. So it's fair to assume that
they had considered the issue fairly thoroughly. See below for my
(outsider's) understanding of their position, though.

> Could you please explain to me (us?) in clear terms the problems for
> embedded systems with the LGPL?  I'd like to know what would prevent
> somebody from using my VM in an embedded system (or what would be their
> additional burden due to the LGPL license).

As I understand it, the LGPL requires providing a dynamically-linked
version of your executable and a facility for the end-user to later
download new versions of the LGPL-covered code to this executable later.
For people who want to use their JVM in a microwave, this does indeed
seem unreasonable :)

> Maybe understanding clearly the implications of the differences above 
> would lessen my worries, but as of now, I can't live with a license that 
> seems as weak as the BSD (witout adv. clause) license.

Could you clarify how you see the license as any less restrictive than
the LGPL? My understanding is that the normal GPL still applies to
changes in the Classpath code itself (these are "derived works" but not
"executables" which would invoke the exception) - therefore the net
behavior is almost identical to the LGPL for these purposes.

Of course, IANAL and this issue isn't one I studied deeply - my
impression is derived only from what people (who seemed to know what
they were talking about) said at the time of the license switch.

Stuart.