libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation

[Godmar Back]

> 
> Paul Fisher <rao@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > >From the Kaffe licensing FAQ:
> > 
> >     Can I run proprietary Java applications and native JNI libraries
> >     under Kaffe?
> > 
> >     Yes, you can. Kaffe's choice of GPL does not affect your ability
> >     to run any Java or JNI-based code that you could run on any other
> >     Java virtual machine.
> > 
> > The same would apply to running Java applications under the GPL'd
> > Classpath AWT.
> 
> Unfortunately, an FAQ is not a legal document.  The words of the GPL
> do not support this interpretation.  More to the point, it seems to
> contradict how the GPL has traditionally been interpreted, including
> historical pronuncements from the FSF.  What seems to be intended is a
> "GPL with modifications" - i.e. more-or-less what Cygnus has been
> proposing all along.
> 
> If the FSF were to issue a revised GPL, or an *authoritative*
> addendum to the GPL, it would be different matter.  But RMS
> has a tendency to prefer to deliberately leave some things
> under-specified.  I don't think that should be acceptable for GCJ.

In all this discussion, please don't forget that the interpretation of
a license only matters should a copyright owner sue a licensee
for copyright infringement.  While RMS drafted the GPL, his views on
the GPL are certainly not binding; as far as such specifics are
concerned, they may not matter much to other copyright owners who
release code under the GPL or LGPL.  If RMS had wanted to have a final
say in how to interpret the GPL, he should have restricted distribution
of the license document.

TVT's interpretation applies to code Transvirtual owns.  The portion
of the FAQ quoted above was written by me after email exchanges with
Tim.  More to the point, it was shown to the public for some time now
on a webpage sponsored and endorsed by Transvirtual.  Tim has also publicly
confirmed it.  In other words, legal document or not, I believe that a 
licensee would have a good case against Transvirtual if it used the code 
in the way the FAQ suggests; Transvirtual would have to deny endorsing 
that statement and they would have to convince a judge or jury that
they've acted in good faith.  Given the reality,  I believe this is 
such an outlandish scenario not even worth thinking about.
So for all practical purposes, you can run any Java or JNI-based code 
on kaffe that you could run on any other JVM.


Nevertheless, it would clearly be beneficial to come up with an
agreed-upon interpretation of many or most copyright owners who release
code under a GPL/LGPL license.

	- Godmar