[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Simple Proposal
|
From: |
reali |
|
Subject: |
Re: Simple Proposal |
|
Date: |
Thu, 8 Nov 2001 16:24:37 +0100 (MET) |
I'm just using classpath, so probably my opinion is not worth much.
I think this change would make my work simpler.
In the ongoing licensing discussion, nobody could come up with a
definitive argument about what license a JVM using classpath
should have.
Using the LGPL would make things clearer for me as JVM developer,
so I would favour Etienne's proposal.
-Patrik
--
Patrik Reali, address@hidden
http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/reali/
http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/native/
- The need for clarifying the GPL exception (unfortunately), (continued)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- The need for clarifying the GPL exception (unfortunately), Etienne M. Gagnon, 2001/11/12
- Re: The need for clarifying the GPL exception (unfortunately), Brian Jones, 2001/11/12
- Re: The need for clarifying the GPL exception (unfortunately), Etienne M. Gagnon, 2001/11/12
- Re: The need for clarifying the GPL exception (unfortunately), Brian Jones, 2001/11/12
- Re: The need for clarifying the GPL exception (unfortunately), Norbert Bollow, 2001/11/12
- Re: Simple Proposal, Tom Tromey, 2001/11/08
- Re: Simple Proposal, Mark Wielaard, 2001/11/09
Re: Simple Proposal, Chris Gray, 2001/11/08
Re: Simple Proposal, Brian Jones, 2001/11/08
Re: Simple Proposal,
reali <=