[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Licences
From: |
Andrew Selkirk |
Subject: |
Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Licences |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:39:08 -0400 |
On Friday 13 July 2001 07:40 am, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> I know, I know...
>
> It has been brought to my attention that the LGPL and the GPL are
> excluding some users of Classpathx code.
>
> I would like to ask all the developers if they would mind licencing
> their code under the "Classpath" licence.
>
> The Classpath-licence is the GPL+an exception allowing linking to
> non-free code without infection.
>
> Apparently, this is not the same to the LGPL.
This has always confused me! I wrote all my code using LGPL because it was
quite clear in the definition of the license what it is used for; ie. use
anywhere you want, but if you change it, pass them back. This is very clear.
Why does the GPL+exception really exist? Yes, it covers the GCC compiler
such that programs compiled with it are not affected. Is the GPL+exception a
license FSF encourages the use of?
Another part of the confusion I have is that from what I gather here, the
classpath project is GPL+ex hence the pressure for us. Shouldn't all the
core java classes be LGPL since they are all libraries?
Hope someone can help clear some of this for me.
> Dual licencing of code is something we can do if people have a
> problem with just using the Classpath licence, for example if you want
> to continue licencing your bit of Classpathx under the LGPL but agree
> to licence under the Classpath-licence as well.
When you refer to the claspath license, are you referring to GPL+ex?
Until I understand the conditions of these licenses better, I would be much
more comfortable with dual licensing.
Andrew...