This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
Hi, On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 14:59 +0100, Clemens Eisserer wrote: > Just because I am interrested: Is it allowed to create a proprietary > JVM with classpath-libraries? I just do fully understand the > exception. There are currently runtimes/compilers created based on GNU Classpath that are (partially) proprietary. This is not encouraged, but is a compromise which we believe will attract more developers to contribute to the free implementation of the core classes. This is a gcj development list and not appropriate for legal or licensing questions. Normally such requests should be send to licensing@fsf.org. Note that it was felt that the current distribution text is unclear. The FSF would like to clarify the language so they get less of these kind of questions. To get input we setup a wiki for giving input: http://developer.classpath.org/licensing/ The FSF is committed to an open process for license releases and discussions. So please make sure you participate. Also note that this does not mean we are going to radically change the license or that we will make all of GNU Classpath/libgcj only available under the GPL. We will just make sure that it is clear when, where and what source code should be distributed with works derived from and/or based on GNU Classpath/libgcj. The clarified text will have the same intent as the current license text, but be (hopefully) written more clearly. So please add comments to this wiki about points that are currently not clear. And finally note that using a wiki for having an open discussion about legal issues with the FSF is an experiment. We are not sure this is the best way to handle these kind of discussions. There have been some complaints that the process itself was not made more clear by using a wiki. So the FSF might choose a different discussion method in the future. (Input about the followed process and ways to improve it are also appreciated - on the wiki, not on this list.) Thanks, Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |