Re: SAX inclusion in libgcj

[Nic Ferrier <nferrier at tapsellferrier dot co dot uk>]

Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 20:57, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> > Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:
> >
> > > I think that is a good idea and if the copyright is assigned to the FSF
> > > there should be no problem at all with integrating it. Except for
> > > actually doing it which always takes more time than is available :) But
> > > I thought that Gnu Jaxp was still in beta. Is there an official release
> > > already? Then it would certainly make sense in pull this in.
> >
> > Why would we need a copyright assignment? It's just a downstream
> > provider isn't it?
> 
> Normally all code in the main Classpath distribution (and this is true
> for all FSF projects) is only accepted when the copyright is assigned to
> the FSF. Since I thought GNU JAXP was a GNU project I thought this was
> already the case. There are of course exceptions, but since the XML
> classes will probably be integrated tightly with other core packages
> such as e.g. java.util.prefs and java.util.logging (only in Classpath at
> the moment) and the new java.beans framework also has an XML storage, it
> would be nice to keep all the copyright assigned to the FSF.

To be a GNU project "project" you DO NOT have to assign (c) to the
FSF. Projects run by the FSF of course require that.

Many other projects require assignment because it allows the FSF to
act as the legal owner which is important in any (c) dispute.


I agree that it might be a laudable aim for the ClasspathX project, we
have a very limited set of authors on the GNUJAXP implementation code
and so it will be easy to assign to the FSF should we need to.


Is this the position then? Unless we assign the (c) of ClasspathX
code to the FSF we cannnot distribute it with GCJ?

I don't think it can be: the W3C classes and the SAX classes are not
(c) assigned to the FSF.


Nic