SAX inclusion in libgcj

Mark Wielaard
Sat Oct 26 07:26:00 GMT 2002

Hi Nic,

On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 15:26, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> To be a GNU project "project" you DO NOT have to assign (c) to the
> FSF. Projects run by the FSF of course require that.
> Many other projects require assignment because it allows the FSF to
> act as the legal owner which is important in any (c) dispute.

You are of course right. But both GNU Classpath and GCC are run by the
FSF. I just thought that ClasspathX was also an official FSF run

> I agree that it might be a laudable aim for the ClasspathX project, we
> have a very limited set of authors on the GNUJAXP implementation code
> and so it will be easy to assign to the FSF should we need to.

That would indeed be nice since then it is far easier to mix and match
parts of each others projects. This is also what was done for the GNU
Crypto project.

> Is this the position then? Unless we assign the (c) of ClasspathX
> code to the FSF we cannnot distribute it with GCJ?
> I don't think it can be: the W3C classes and the SAX classes are not
> (c) assigned to the FSF.

Again yes. But for such things we need to clear all legal issues with
the FSF. Brian Jones and/or the GCC steering committee normally do such

Since I am not an official GNU maintainer of any of these projects I
cannot (and don't want to) integrate anything before I am sure that all
legal/copyright issues are handled correctly. But that also means that
this not The Position, it is just my position as a volunteer developer
on these projects. I like the fact that not only I but also RedHat, IBM,
Intel, etc. assign the copyright to the FSF. That makes all players
equal and gives me the warm fuzzy feeling that all legal issues are
taken care of. So that everyone can be sure that what the FSF
distributes is and always will be Free Software. I do understand that
others might have different opinions on that.



More information about the Java mailing list