Re: vm/reference classes licensed under LGPL

[Brian Jones]

Artur Biesiadowski <address@hidden> writes:

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

Artur, you're confused about the license.  You may use Classpath as a
library with any free or non-free program you wish.  The special
exception also allows you to link Classpath to create executables that
are not forced to also be covered by the GPL just because of linking
with Classpath.  This doesn't mean that Classpath is not still covered
by the GPL which stipulates making source code available (ie to paying
customers if you so choose).

I think this is similar to how glibc is licensed for a comparison.

Regarding Kaffe, I think the difference in the licenses is clear
though the intentions are nearly the same.  Relicensing Klasses.jar to
a similar license would be nice but my impressions are that won't
happen until it is no longer advantageous monetarily to keep it as is.

-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>