Re: Java tools

[Brian Jones]

"Nic Ferrier" <address@hidden> writes:

>>>> Tom Tromey <address@hidden> 10-Jul-01 4:29:31 PM >>>
> 
>    I'd prefer to see us simply expand the mandate of, say, 
>    Classpath and then just put more things in it.
> 
> I'd be happy with that too, perhaps Classpath would need a seperate
> CVS module for each tool but I don't see a major organizational
> problem either way.
> 
> The only trouble with Classpath is that it requires (c) assignment
> and the 'exception' licence. 

Classpath uses the exception license on the core libraries (except for
AWT).  Tools can certainly exist under a different license.  

Copyright assignment is useful for making the core libraries legally
defensible in whole from a single party, the FSF.  I do think that it
has slowed the progress of the project, but I do not know why this is
so.  Perhaps the assignment process or its effects are misunderstood.
I decided long ago that assigning copyright to the FSF for my
contributions to this project was in my best interests and theirs.
What is appropriate for the core libraries may not be necessary for
these tools.

> A large part of this problem could be obviated if the Classpath
> administrators choose to accept tools under non-exception licences,
> eg: plain GPL or LGPL.

To date I don't think we've refused to accept code under a different
license for tools.  Certainly a simple javap, javah, and javadoc would
be nice to have.

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>