classpath
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: Sablepath packages available to download]


From: Etienne M. Gagnon
Subject: [Fwd: Sablepath packages available to download]
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:29:11 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010819


--
Etienne M. Gagnon                    http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/
--- Begin Message ---
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:49:41 -0400
From: "Etienne M. Gagnon" <address@hidden>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010819
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bryce McKinlay <address@hidden>
CC: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Sablepath packages available to download
References: <address@hidden> <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> Sounds cool. I'm sure we'd all be grateful if you would consider 
> migrating your build changes/improvements and directory layout cleanups 
> back into classpath at some point?


I would like to do so, but the Classpath project has yet to accept my 
offer to contribute my modifications under my own Copyright (but 
identical license).

Talking of license...  Richard M. Stallman has confirmed to me that the 
Classpath (GNU+Excp) license is NOT a "copyleft" license. In other words:
1- One can download the Classpath
2- modify it locally
3- license the modifications under GPL+exp (locally, not obligation to 
re-distribute)
4- link the modified classpath with proprietary modules to create an 
executable
5- distribute/Sell the executable without distributing the sources of 
Classpath nor the modifications.  In fact, there's even no obligation to 
  disclose that Classpath was ever used.  In other words, the current 
Classpath license is weaker than the BSD license (without adv. clause)!

This contradicts clearly the motivation that lead to change Classpath's 
license from LGPL to GPL+Excep.  When I and other had ask questions 
about the GPL+Excp. on this list, the reply was to say that it was 
equivalent to the LGPL, minor the "re-linking requirement".  RMS 
confirms that this is not the case.

I personally have trouble to license my code under a license that does 
not force a third party to redistribute the source code of "my 
contribution" along an executable derived from my work.  I think most 
Classpath contributors share the same feelings.

So, if you like my work, and you would like me to contribute directly to 
Classpath, please pressure your leaders for:
1- Accepting contributions without copyright assignment, and
2- Change the license to a "weak copyleft" license [LGPL + exception 
about re-linking requirement? or something along my earlier suggestions 
on the matter?].

Etienne

-- 
Etienne M. Gagnon                    http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]