[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Questions about the Classpath license exception

From: Davanum Srinivas
Subject: Re: Questions about the Classpath license exception
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 19:39:26 -0400

We can use the con call next week as the forum.

Just to summarize *Ideally* what we would like, here's a list: 

- We don't want to modify any classpath code. If we need changes, we
can work with classpath folks.
- We don't want to add classpath sources to our tree. this will avoid
local changes.
- We want to add classpath jar snapshots to our CVS/SVN (preferable).
- We want to add classpath jar to our installer to distribute a
working JVM/JRE in a single download.
- We want to enable a commercial product to be able to sublicense the
complete JVM/JRE.


On 5/14/05, Leo Simons <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi classpath developers!
> (Harmony people: replies only on the classpath mailing list please, this has
> in reality only little to do with harmony.)
> "Oh no, not all that licensing crap again!"
> As part of the ongoing investigation whether the new Apache Harmony project
> can legally use GNU Classpath and what the licensing implications of that
> should be, one of Apache's resident license experts inlined some comments
> into the classpath exception wording:
>    Linking this library (scope?) statically or dynamically with
>    other modules (define?) is making a combined work based on this
>    library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General
>    Public License cover the whole combination. (I.e., this work
>    and anything you combine with it cannot be copied, redistributed,
>    or made into derivative works except under the terms of the GPL).
>    As a special exception (on what?), the copyright holders (who?)
>    of this library (encompassing what?) give you permission to
>    link (how?) this (what?) library with independent modules (defined
>    later) to produce an executable (what's that?), regardless of
>    the license terms of these independent modules (license as
>    received or license for redistribution?), and to copy and
>    distribute (a small fraction of the rights under copyright law,
>    not to mention patents) the resulting executable (but what about
>    the source libraries?) under terms of your choice, provided that
>    you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and
>    conditions of the license of that module. An independent module
>    is a module which is not derived from or based on (define?) this
>    library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception
>    to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so.
>    If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from
>    your version (which is the same as dual-licensing with GPL).
> That's a lot of comments and question marks! The gist of this is that the
> combination of GPL + this exception has many legal holes at a glance. From
> what I understand (not a lot, IANAL), that is because various things in the
> statement are not fully defined.
> The first thing we would like to do is get rid of all those question marks.
> It's probably not productive to go through all of them. One suggestion I'd
> like to pass on is that you guys write up a list of the goals to be achieved
> with the GPL+exception construct (ideally in the form of a web page, since
> links are easy to pass around :-)) and some of the ASF people take a look at
> that and take a stab at a proposal for a different kind of wording which
> would be deemed to be compatible with those goals, Apache's goals with
> Harmony, and the Apache License, if that's possible. We can then make the
> three texts (the classpath exception, the goals to be achieved with the
> exception, an alternative proposal) subject of a discussion, perhaps via
> concall.
> Sound like a plan? Mark, I think you've got my cell if you want a
> high-bandwidth chat :-)
> Cheers,
> Leo

Davanum Srinivas -

reply via email to

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