Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Licences

[Nic Ferrier]

>>> Andrew Selkirk <address@hidden> 14-Jul-01 10:39:08 PM
>>>

    Why does the GPL+exception really exist?  
    Yes, it covers the GCC compiler such that programs 
    compiled with it are not affected.  

That's not the reason. GCC used to be covered by the GPL.

The output of a program cannot be covered by it's licence.

glibc has always been LGPLed to allow anyone to link to it.


   Is the GPL+exception a  license FSF encourages the use of?

The FSF tries to convince people to use the GPL whenever possible.
This is not possible all the time so the FSF provides the LGPL and
other exceptional licences.


   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?

Classpath is GPL+x because GCJ adopted Classpath. The GCJ people need
GPL+x because they are developing for embedded markets.

The LGPL has some requirements that allegedly prevent it's use in
embedded systems.

I personally can't see any legal difference between the LGPL and the
GPL+x. 

So personally, I don't think it matters. I'm still achieving what I
want to achieve (ie: making my code free) and I'm causing less
confusion because there's one licence for all the code.

Hopefully the FSF will clear up the issue and perhaps formalise the
GPL+x in some sort of 'GPL for embedded systems'.



    When you refer to the claspath license, are you 
    referring to GPL+ex?

Yes, I am.


   Until I understand the conditions of these licenses 
   better, I would be much more comfortable with dual 
   licensing.

I'm not gonna get dictatorial about it  /8->

I would prefer if everyone here licenced under the GPL+x but I can't
force you to do that. Licencing on this project is an individual
decision.

If you want to keep code licenced under the LGPL that's fine. I hope
the FSF will clarify the position and explain why the GPL+x is
necessary.


Nic