Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Licences

[dog]

quoth nferrier:
> It has been brought to my attention that the LGPL and the GPL are
> excluding some users of Classpathx code.
> 
> I would like to ask all the developers if they would mind licencing
> their code under the "Classpath" licence.
> 
> The Classpath-licence is the GPL+an exception allowing linking to
> non-free code without infection.
> 
> Apparently, this is not the same to the LGPL.

my javamail providers used to be under lgpl with an additional clause 
allowing runtime linking to javamail. is this the same? what do you mean
by "without infection"?

> >From what I know of Classpathx developers they are only concerned
> that their code be free and free as defined by the FSF.
> 
> The Classpath licence is approved by the FSF, they use it for all the
> Classpath and GCC code.

it would make sense to come up with one licence that can cover a large
software base, rather than having to dual licence. the issue of runtime
linking to non-free code comes up time and time again when writing open
source scripts or interpreted code that runs/can run on non-free interpreters/
vms. if the classpath licence truly represents such a licence i would be 
happy to publish the providers etc under it. does it? would it become, for
instance, a standard for all gnu java code?
-- 
dog