Re: testing before a release

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Etienne" == Etienne M Gagnon <address@hidden> writes:

Etienne> As for the AWT, you can go with the plain GPL if you want,
Etienne> but this is, in my humble opinion, a dead-end.

I think everyone except RMS (and probably Tim Wilkinson, who as far as
I know isn't on this list and with whom I have never spoken on this
issue) is in agreement on this.

Etienne> As usual, you can continue to ignore my suggestions; I'm have
Etienne> now got used to it.  Some of your leaders have their (partly
Etienne> hidden) political/commercial agendas.

Please name names.  Being coy just makes it harder to respond
substantively.

If you are referring to those of us who work at Red Hat here, then I
think you're mistaken.  I can't think of a single time where Red Hat
has hidden its commercial agenda, in fact we've talked about it so
much that I imagine everybody is sick of hearing about it.

Etienne> This is why there's such a license mess.  Nobody cared about
Etienne> the LGPL license for Classpath before the libgcj merge.  To
Etienne> solve the "linking" problem, they went with GPL + exception,
Etienne> but a careful inspection of it tell you that it is a
Etienne> permission to reuse contributed code without any sourc-code
Etienne> redistribution obkigation (very good for companies [I could
Etienne> say names here] to make money $$$ selling embedded stuff that
Etienne> was developped by others).

Are you referring to companies which make embedded projects using
libgcj?  Yes, it's true -- they use libgcj (and thus parts of
Classpath) and don't redistribute source.  RMS was aware of this when
he agreed to relicense the bulk of Classpath.  In fact, I believe it
was one of the more important things he considered in making his
decision.

Obviously you think this tradeoff isn't worth it.  I disagree.  I
think the Classpath/libgcj merger has been a net plus for Classpath.
libgcj hackers (*definitely* not limited to people at RH) have made
many improvements to Classpath.

Tom