Re: Classpath future?

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Etienne" == Etienne M Gagnon <address@hidden> writes:

Etienne> There are some difference, and these differences seem to be
Etienne> great enough for RedHat putting a Veto on the license choice.

I don't think that Red Hat has vetoed anything.  I don't think we have
that power.

It's true that when licensing comes up, I argue for what Red Hat
wants.  That's because I want Classpath and libgcj to share code as
much as possible.  I see the current arrangement as beneficial to both
projects.  Over time the quality of both goes up.  Debugging work I do
often benefits both projects, including other VMs which happen to use
Classpath.

Etienne> Could you please explain to me (us?) in clear terms the
Etienne> problems for embedded systems with the LGPL?

The LGPL requires that the user be able to relink the application with
a modified version of the LGPL library.  This is hard to do when the
code is buried inside your toaster.

Tom