Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> writes:

> In all this discussion, please don't forget that the interpretation of
> a license only matters should a copyright owner sue a licensee
> for copyright infringement.

No;  some people believe in doing what is right and/or legal, not just
what they can get away with.  In addition to ethical concerns, there
is also the uncertaintly that comes when the informal statements
contradict the formal license.

> So for all practical purposes, you can run any Java or JNI-based code 
> on kaffe that you could run on any other JVM.

But what about CNI-based code?  What about GCJ, which does not use
Kaffe?

Anyway, there isn't much point in arguing this.  Unmodified GPL is not
acceptable for libgcj, at least any version maintained and distributed
by Cygnus/RedHat, and a statement on a web page is not a sufficient
modification.  (I can't speak for RedHat, but this is my opinion, and
I'm quite sure it is also the opinion of the Cygnus Gcj group.)
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/