Re: [Fwd: Sablepath packages available to download]

[Brian Jones]

Bryce McKinlay <address@hidden> writes:

> >5- distribute/Sell the executable without distributing the sources of 
> >Classpath nor the modifications.  In fact, there's even no obligation to 
> >  disclose that Classpath was ever used.  In other words, the current 
> >Classpath license is weaker than the BSD license (without adv. clause)!
> >
> Could you please explain this further. This is certainly not the intent 
> or spirit of the classpath license as I understand it, and if true would 
> indicate some kind of loophole.

I've included something below which may help.  This is the most
relevant text from the discussions off-list with RMS & Etienne.  I do
not think RMS, Etienne, or Paul will mind this.

> RMS
>> Etienne
>>    - I want to make sure that every persone who gets a copy of a work 
>>    derived from "SableVM + GNU Classpath", gets a copy of the source code 
>>    of the Free parts of the derived work (or the right to obtain it for a 
>>    minimal fee, as the GPL allows to do).
>
>The current license of Classpath doesn't require this.  I am not sure
>we want to change it to do what the SableVM license does.  It is
>attractive in principle but I can see practical arguments against it.
>
>I see something ambiguous in the Classpath license you suggested to
>me.  If someone were to modify Classpath and link the modified version
>with other code, it is not clear whether this would require him to
>include a copy of the standard Classpath release that he started from,
>or a copy of his modified version of Classpath.
>

And...

>>    May I ask you what these practical arguments against forcing source code
>>    redistribution executables are?
>
>One argument is that it some users might dislike the requirement
>and would choose another library that doesn't make this requirement.
>Perhaps a proprietary one such as Sun's.
>
>There are also some good aspects to using a weak copyleft,
>so I am not sure.

I think the discussion trailed off with RMS indicating he would ask
the "Classpath developers" what they prefer.  My personal preference
at this time would be to make the license behave as Paul describes
here.  

+ From Paul Fisher:
+ ...  The current Classpath license is
+ intended to act like the LGPL, minus the upgrade clause.
+ Modifications to Classpath, if distributed, must be done so under free
+ terms.  The Classpath license is meant to be a weak copyleft -- unlike
+ the modified BSD license.
+
+ If the wording or language in our current license is unclear, then we
+ should consider changing it.

To the best of my knowledge, which is admittedly limited on these
matters, license changes to Classpath must come from the FSF and
ultimately from RMS.  Please be aware that he is currently dealing
with the AWT issue separately and that is not the issue or license
I'm discussing here.

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>