Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Licences

[Andrew Selkirk]

On Friday 13 July 2001 07:40 am, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> I know, I know...
>
> It has been brought to my attention that the LGPL and the GPL are
> excluding some users of Classpathx code.
>
> I would like to ask all the developers if they would mind licencing
> their code under the "Classpath" licence.
>
> The Classpath-licence is the GPL+an exception allowing linking to
> non-free code without infection.
>
> Apparently, this is not the same to the LGPL.

This has always confused me!  I wrote all my code using LGPL because it was 
quite clear in the definition of the license what it is used for; ie. use 
anywhere you want, but if you change it, pass them back.  This is very clear. 
Why does the GPL+exception really exist?  Yes, it covers the GCC compiler 
such that programs compiled with it are not affected.  Is the GPL+exception a 
license FSF encourages the use of?

Another part of the confusion I have is that from what I gather here, the 
classpath project is GPL+ex hence the pressure for us.  Shouldn't all the 
core java classes be LGPL since they are all libraries?

Hope someone can help clear some of this for me.

> Dual licencing of code is something we can do if people have a
> problem with just using the Classpath licence, for example if you want
> to continue licencing your bit of Classpathx under the LGPL but agree
> to licence under the Classpath-licence as well.

When you refer to the claspath license, are you referring to GPL+ex?
Until I understand the conditions of these licenses better, I would be much 
more comfortable with dual licensing.

Andrew...