Re: Simple Proposal

[Per Bothner]

Etienne M. Gagnon wrote:

> Question:
>
> Should I also forward this proposal to the libgcj people, or are they 
> already on the Classpath mailing list?

Some are.  I guess it might be reasonable to forward it.

> Should we also forward this proposal to the GCC steering committee?

My opinion, which I suspect the rest of the SC would share:  While I
don't have any real objection to this license, I don't see that there it is
a real problem it solves, and don't see how discussing or implementing
it would be worth the effort involved.  Note I am definitely opposed to
changing the license unless *all* of Classpath, libgcj, libgcc, and 
libstdc++
are changed to the same license.  They currently all (except for AWT)
have the same GPL+exception license; changing some but not all to use
a different license would I feel be a step backwards. Thus you need to 
convince
at least Stallman, the FSF legal council, and the Gcc SC that this change
is enough of an improvement that it is worth the hassles.  I don't see that
happening, when you consider that Stallman doesn't even like the LGPL.
I think a revision of the LGPL so it can replace both the current LGPL
and the GPL+exception, and that clarifies issues like "linking" - now that
might be a much more useful (but also difficult) task.

I also fear that raising the issue at this time might be a distraction from
the issue of the AWT license.