[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Kaffe & Classpath

From: Ian D. Stewart
Subject: Re: Kaffe & Classpath
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 02:03:40 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010628

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.


reply via email to

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