Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

[Artur Biesiadowski]

Mark Wielaard wrote:

[...modified GPL versus LGPL...]

Thanks a lot - I know understand why modified GPL is used and it seems
reasonable to me.

I know that license discussions suck, but I think that we should reach a
consensus with what can be made with non-modified GPL java code. I also
think that it is viral - you cannot do anything with it unless you also
GPL your code. Of course you can develop application with some non-GPL
version, distribute it without library and then tell the user to
manually download and install GPL version - in this case I think it will
be ok to choose other license. But if you develop against GPL or include
it in distribution you are out of luck IMHO.

This is very important thing - because more and more free libraries will
be developed and it should be obvious to both creators and the users
what are the requirements/laws here.

BTW, wasn't GPL-ness of kaffe one of the reasons why classpath was
started from scratch, instead of reusing kaffe classes ?

Artur