[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re:

From: Mark Wielaard
Subject: Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re:
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:42:20 +0100

On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 15:09 +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
> > MX4J uses the Apache Software License, which, IIRC,  is
> > incompatible with the Classpath license.
> No its not incompatible with the Classpath license, its incompatible 
> with pure GPL.

Which is indeed a problem because that means we cannot include these
together with GNU Classpath (as external packages) or recommend them to
people to build larger works on (since those would then also be GPL

The good news is that the FSF and the AFS are finally talking again
about the pratical problems around combining (L)GPL and ASL covered
code. This comes from the cooperation between the Kaffe and Gump hackers
( All hackers involved are really
upbeat about going forward and solving some key issues. At the same time
we all realize that there are some fundamental philosophical and
interpretation differences and customs between the groups. Everyone is
well aware that the last time the ASL/GPL issue came up some
miscommunication took place and mistakes were made. We really want to
prevent that this time around. It takes time to build up trust. So don't
expect results immediately.

One of the issues on the agenda is comming up with some standard boiler
plate texts for projects covered under the (L)GPL or ASL that want to
explicitly make their projects compatible so it can be combined into a
larger worked covered under either of these licenses. Hopefully this can
be done by the end of the month so we can propose such a text to
projects like MX4J or other projects that we would like to combine with
GNU Classpath or other standard GPL compatible libraries.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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