Re: Kaffe & Classpath

[Ian D. Stewart]

Tom Tromey wrote:

> > > > > > "Ian" == Ian D Stewart <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > > 2. Kaffe's java code is targetted specifically at the Kaffe VM. It's
> > > TVT's commerical impetus (the embedded market) that feeds the design
> > > of that library. Classpath has no such restriction.
>
> Ian> Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't the entire point of
> Ian> distributing Classpath under GPL + Exception to allow Cygnus to
> Ian> market it to the embedded community?
>
> Ian> While this may not effect the design of Classpath (or at least it
> Ian> doesn't appeared to have yet), it could be argued that the
> Ian> licensing of Classpath is at least as important as the design, at
> Ian> least as far as perception is concerned.
>
> What perception precisely are you talking about?
The perception that the development of Classpath is driven by Cygnus' 
(or RedHat's) business strategy, as opposed to technical merit.  

One of Nic Ferrier's arguments for choosing Classpath over Kaffe is that 
the development of Kaffe is driven by Transvirtual's business goals, and 
that Classpath is not driven by any business' business goals.  I don't 
believe that is true, or at least based on past decisions, that doesn't 
appear to be true.

Consider, the GPL, more than any sort of methodology or theory of 
computer science, is the hallmark of FSF software.  In the case of 
Classpath, the FSF has chosen to modify what is, at least in their mind, 
a crucial element of the end product for the sole purpose of supporting 
RedHat's business plans.

> Ian> All things considered, I would say that Classpath does indeed
> Ian> have such a restriction.
>
> Please explain what is restricted.
Perhaps 'restriction' was a poor choice of words.  My point was that the 
assertion that, because Classpath is developed by the FSF, that it is 
not potentially subject to the same non-technical development 
constraints, namely to support a private company's business goals, is a 
false one.


Regards,
Ian