Re: Licensing concerns

[Brian Jones]

Brad Cox <address@hidden> writes:

> The goal is to maintain the sources in java, but to build different 
> versions for different markets: a high-security version based on hardware 
> devices like the Java IButton, a medium-security version in which the java 
> is compiled to binary with gcj, and a low-security version as a java jar 
> file.
> 
> As I understand the issues from the discussions on this list, some of the 
> proposals appear to grant FSF a license to the entire application if I 
> ever distribute the medium-security classpath-based version. Which would 
> obviously be immediately fatal to my plans.

I'm sorry for the confusion.  Please ignore the AWT license issue
because it is not resolved and any discussion now would have to be
redone again after the FSF board makes their decision.

Regarding other parts of Classpath and libgcj, I wouldn't expect any
change in licensing.

> Furthermore, the application is based on linkable java components I've 
> written that my customer's applications call. These calls would eventually 
> wind up calling classpath components. Would my customer's applications 
> wind up getting stuck to the FSF tarball?

No.
 
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>