[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Simple Proposal

From: Mark Wielaard
Subject: Re: Simple Proposal
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:01:35 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.23i


On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 10:33:52AM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> Etienne M. Gagnon wrote:
> >
> >Should I also forward this proposal to the libgcj people, or are they 
> >already on the Classpath mailing list?
> Some are.  I guess it might be reasonable to forward it.

I think it would be best to forward it to address@hidden since as
Per points out below this should/could affect more then just libgcj.
If this should be solved for the java runtime libraries it should also
be solved for other language runtime libraries (even as Bryce already
pointed out they are not as large in scope as Classpath/libgcj).

> >Should we also forward this proposal to the GCC steering committee?
> My opinion, which I suspect the rest of the SC would share:  While I
> don't have any real objection to this license, I don't see that there it
> is a real problem it solves, and don't see how discussing or implementing
> it would be worth the effort involved.  Note I am definitely opposed to
> changing the license unless *all* of Classpath, libgcj, libgcc, and 
> libstdc++ are changed to the same license.  They currently all
> (except for AWT) have the same GPL+exception license; changing some but
> not all to use a different license would I feel be a step backwards.

I agree with Per on this one.

> I think a revision of the LGPL so it can replace both the current LGPL
> and the GPL+exception, and that clarifies issues like "linking" - now that
> might be a much more useful (but also difficult) task.

That is probably going to far and I like the fact that Etienne comes up
with little improvements to the current situation. I like his first idea
of adding a explanation about our interpretation of the GPL+Exception
but I oppose to change the actual license text at the moment. But it might
be nice in the long term (if we can convince others in the GNU project).
A revised LGPL would indeed be difficult but on the long term really worth
it. Are you aware of any current discussions in that direction?

> I also fear that raising the issue at this time might be a distraction from
> the issue of the AWT license.

I also think these issues should not be mixed.


Stuff to read:
  What's Wrong with Copy Protection, by John Gilmore

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]