Re: Win CE port

[Philippe Laporte]

Hi,
    Thanks for the answers.

Yes, I mean rather Java VMs as seen as belonging to seperate categories 
according to their licensing requirements.

Yet, the information you provide seems to be in contraditction somewhat 
with what they have at
http://sablevm.org/wiki/License_FAQ

Thanks,

Philippe Laporte
Software 

Gatespace Telematics
Första Långgatan 18
41328 Göteborg
Sweden
Phone: +46 702 04 35 11
Fax:   +46 31 24 16 50
Email: address@hidden



Per Bothner wrote:

> Roman Kennke wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Am Freitag, den 20.01.2006, 13:05 -0800 schrieb Per Bothner:
> >
> > > Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Phillipe,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 15:03 +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >    It is our understanding that a GPL VM can't be freely 
> > > > > redistributed in a commercial product.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There should be no trouble at all freely redistributing such a 
> > > > thing in
> > > > a commercial product. Just make sure you distribute the source code 
> > > > for
> > > > it to your users.
> > >
> > >
> > > Just to clarify:
> > >
> > > Depends what you mean by "it".  If you mean the VM, that may not be
> > > enough, since in an embedded environment it is likely the VM is linked
> > > in with the commercial product.  In that case you may also have to
> > > freely redistributing source for the commercial product.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > AFAICS this is true for the GPL, but not so with the GPL+linking
> > exception under which GNU Classpath is distibuted. Maybe someone with
> > more insight in the license (Mark? Dalibor?) could clarify this?
>
>
> Correct, but the comment was "GPL VM".  I assumed he was talking about
> a "VM" that was GPL'd - not the Classpath libraries - which do not
> include a VM.