Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation

[Godmar Back <gback at cs dot utah dot edu>]

> 
> 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.)

It seems that's a two-sided sword:
Things that RMS likes to leave underspecified, other holders may not 
enforce.  This could conceivably lead to legal precedents that RMS may 
not like.

> 
> > 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.
> 

Oh, I totally agree.  They should either not use the GPL or amend it
to clarify their intentions.  I think people like Alexandre have asked 
for that already.  Personally, I like Tim's position (--on how to interpret 
the license in the case we're discussing--), but I think a clarification
that is part of the license document wouldn't hurt.

In general, however, what are you/gcj/Redhat/other GPL-users going to 
do?  Rely on people with whom you disagree changing their ways or set 
your own rules and interpretations in the domain you control?

	- Godmar