Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

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

> I believe the underlying problem is that the copyright holders that are 
> using the GPL/LGPL did not agree to adhere to a binding interpretation of
> the GPL/LGPL.

Yes, there are some terms (like "program") that are rather vague.

Note that RMS sees that leaving something underspecified can be
a feature, partly because it makes it easier to talk projects
that are in the legal gray zone into making their code more free.
(For example, the NeXT Objective-C compiler.)

> Redhat is big enough now; they should be able to afford to draft and 
> publish their own license,

That's not the point; the problem is *Transvirtual's* license,
not RedHat's.

(And GCJ is part of Gcc and a GNU project, it is preferable
to use a GNU license - or at the very least something compatible
with the GPL.)

> like Netscape/AOL and Apple already do.

I'm not sure these other licenses are much clearer (but I
haven't studied them).

> ps: regarding "what's right" etc., if someone uses GPL'd kaffe to run a 
> proprietary java app after consulting Tim and doing so is in contradiction 
> to what you think the words of the GPL say, then IMO that's still far from 
> being "wrong"; so let's not unnecessarily add an ethical or moral dimension 
> here.

I said (IIRC) "morally / legally".  In this case, there is still the legal
uncertainty, which would make lawyers less than comfortable.  Sorry for
using phrasing that could be easily mis-read.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/