gcc 3.0

Tom Tromey tromey@cygnus.com
Tue Oct 17 22:02:00 GMT 2000


>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:

Mark> He told me that that was very deliberate (to make sure that the
Mark> FSF would not undermine the business strategy of Transvirtual
Mark> that distributes a pure GPL awt implementation). When I told him
Mark> that work was going on in the libgcj tree on awt classes under
Mark> the new GPL+exception license he didn't seem to like that very
Mark> much.  Has this issue been discussed with him?

I mentioned this very scenario when we were negotiating the merger.
He avoided the question.

I don't see how he can consistently be against this work.  After all,
if he is against us reimplementing it under the new license, then he
would be undercutting Red Hat's business strategy -- something he
promised me he would not do.

I'm not going to worry about this until I get email about it from RMS.
I think our current approach is fine.

Mark> How much time do we have before 3.0?

Unknown, but I try to think of it on the order of just a couple months
and not a year or something like that.

Mark> It would be very nice if all of libgcj and classpath were
Mark> merged, but that is a very big task

That definitely can't happen in the required time frame.

Mark> What ever happend to the JNI on CNI wrapper library proposed by
Mark> Paul Fisher?

Nobody has had the time to start implementing it :-(.
It remains one of the big barriers to the merger.  I think I'll try to
see if RH will schedule time for me to do it.

Tom


More information about the Java mailing list