Re: javax.naming work (Classpath vs ClasspathX)

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 12:12:45AM +0100, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> 
> We [The ClasspathX project]
> do NOT have an issue with licencing gpl+exception. In fact, we'd
> like to see that as the default licence for java code (we think it
> makes more sense for OO languages).

That is nice to hear. It would be good if we (The Java GNU community)
had some mailinglist to discuss this kind of issues. The GNU project
now has a couple of java related projects which all have their own
mailinglists. Having a central mailinglist were we can coordinate the
GNU java policies with representatives of all the projects would really
help the integration.

> Why is (c) an issue? The FSF has (c) assigned to it to allow the FSF
> to fight legal battles. 
And to make it easier to change licenses or combine projects (like the
Classpath/libgcj merge). If the projects all used the normal (L)GPL then
I don't think this would be such an issue. But now that some parts use
(L)GPL and some GPL+Exception it would really help if one party could make
license changes without having to track down all contributors and get
individual permission at some later date (when it might be a lot more
difficult to find some of the people involved).

Also note that the GPL+exception does not make everyone feel that easy.
Most people know the implications of the (L)GPL but are not sure about
the exact implications of the GPL+Exception. We might want to clearify
the language at a later state. But then again it would be very hard to
change the license text if there is not one party that is legally allowed
to do that.

> You can submit code to ClasspathX and assign (c) if you want (we
> already have a (c) assigned servlet API).
I know, I wrote part of the servlet API stuff :)

Cheers,

Mark
-- 
Stuff to read:
    <http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
  What's Wrong with Copy Protection, by John Gilmore