Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Licences

[Nic Ferrier]

>>> dog <address@hidden> 13-Jul-01 1:18:16 PM >>>

   my javamail providers used to be under lgpl 
   with an additional clause allowing runtime linking 
   to javamail. is this the same? what do you mean
   by "without infection"?

See Dave's mail for a description of the clause.


   it would make sense to come up with one licence 
   that can cover a large software base, rather than 
   having to dual licence. the issue of runtime linking 
   to non-free code comes up time and time again 
   when writing open source scripts or interpreted code 
   that runs/can run on non-free interpreters/ vms.

   if the classpath licence truly represents such a licence 
   i would be happy to publish the providers etc under it. 
   does it? 

Yes. Kinda.


   would it become, for instance, a standard for all gnu java 
   code?

As far as GNU java code is concerned it looks like the GPL+exception
is going to become the de-facto licence, instead of the LGPL. I will
be documenting the fact on the GNU java webpage and I will ask rms to
sort something out on the licence pages.

Some brave souls (me for instance) continue to licence code under the
GPL. Paperclips for example is GPLed and Kaffe is still GPLed.

I wouldn't have a problem with anyone continuing to use the GPL, it
would just be nicer for Classpathx if we could licence all our code
under one licence and make that licence the same as the Classpath and
GCJ licences.


Nic