Licensing concerns

[Brad Cox]

I'm a prospective classpath user, not a developer. I've some questions as 
to how the various licensing possibilities would impact my plans to use 
classpath.

I've a large security-intensive application written entirely in Java. I've 
been hoping that compiling the java to binary with gcj would (1) make it 
harder to penetrate security by decompiling the distribution jar with jad 
and (2) relieve the current installation hassles of deploying applicaions 
based on a separate JVM to nontechnical users.

The goal is to maintain the sources in java, but to build different 
versions for different markets: a high-security version based on hardware 
devices like the Java IButton, a medium-security version in which the java 
is compiled to binary with gcj, and a low-security version as a java jar 
file.

As I understand the issues from the discussions on this list, some of the 
proposals appear to grant FSF a license to the entire application if I 
ever distribute the medium-security classpath-based version. Which would 
obviously be immediately fatal to my plans.

Furthermore, the application is based on linkable java components I've 
written that my customer's applications call. These calls would eventually 
wind up calling classpath components. Would my customer's applications 
wind up getting stuck to the FSF tarball?

Finally, my application is a digital rights management system that 
addresses similar concerns as FSF (property rights for digital goods). The 
big difference is that it uses technology instead of lawyers, and it 
strikes an even balance between producer and consumer interests instead of 
only consumer issues as FSF does. Many other differences result from this 
difference in philosophy; too many to detail here. The java version of the 
system is online at http://virtualschool.edu/mybank.

On Thursday, November 8, 2001, at 09:29 AM, Etienne M. Gagnon wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to be both constructive and realistic.  It seems that 
> changing the non-AWT license is a difficult issue.  I have two simple 
> proposals:
> 1- Keep the current exception, but add a small, yet important, 
> clarification.
> 2- Do the same as (1-), but also change the "base license" from GPL to 
> LGPL.
>
> I will discuss(2-) in another message, as it is a somewhat larger change.
>   Here is the clarification I suggest to add in (1-):
>
> --- BEGIN ---
> Note that people who make modified versions of Classpath are not
> obligated to grant this special exception for their modified versions;
> it is their choice whether to do so.  The GNU General Public License
> gives permission to release a modified version without this exception;
> this exception also makes it possible to release a modified version
> which carries forward this exception.
> --- END ---
>
> I think it shouldn't require a license war to get this through, as it 
> changes nothing to the spirit nor to the content of the current 
> GPL+exception; it simply clarifies it.
>
> Does any body have an objection to adding this paragraph?
>
> Etienne
> PS:  I would really prefer that people go with my second suggestion, but 
> I think we should at least agree on adding this clarification.
> -- Etienne M. Gagnon                    http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
> SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
> SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classpath mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath