Re: Event class?

[Shane Nay]

On Thursday 10 May 2001 10:35, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Shane> Q re licensing: I noted some stuff in the mailing list
> Shane> regarding libgcj & classpath getting merged on occasion.  If
> Shane> this is the case, how can their be a license collision?
>
> It isn't a collision, but rather the possibility of confusion.
>
> libgcj is entirely GPL+exception.  This includes the libgcj
> implementation of java.awt.
>
> Classpath is mostly GPL+exception, except for AWT, which is LGPL (as I
> recall).
>
> If we take classes from the libgcj AWT and put them into Classpath,
> I'm afraid confusion will result.  I don't want to be in the position
> of seeing classes from libgcj incorrectly relicensed and then having
> to find historical evidence to make sure we can keep using them in
> libgcj.  If that makes sense.  Maybe I'm too worried?
>
> I think eventually, once the libgcj AWT is finished, we can just
> delete the Classpath AWT and replace it with the libgcj
> implementation.  Or maybe the other Classpath developers don't want
> that.  It is a negotiation for a future day which may never come --
> especially given the pace at which the libgcj AWT has been advancing
> lately.

Yes, probably the case.  The GNUClasspath's AWT is/would take some serious 
work to bring it "up to code" as it were.  Even if it gets there, I see stuff 
in there that's not in Java at all, and a ton of stuff missing.  Hmm, maybe I 
should be working on libgcj... :).  Anyway, I'm going to mess around and see 
what it would take to fix GNUClasspath's AWT implementation.  Possibly it 
doesn't even work, maybe that's even likely.  But I won't know till I work 
with it for a couple more days.

The licensing stuff seems less of an issue.., but maybe it is.  Depends on 
how far along libgcj's AWT really is.  Since ours doesn't really work that I 
can see, and theirs is "actually working", then the licensing issue is moot, 
just make a tarball and stuff it on the site as "historical LGPL AWT 
implementation that doesn't really work" ;-).  But maybe it's not that bad at 
all, and can be fixed.

Thanks,
Shane Nay.