public inbox for java@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00 ` John Keiser
  2000-04-01  0:00   ` Tom Tromey
@ 2000-04-01  0:00   ` Paul Fisher
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Paul Fisher @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: java-discuss; +Cc: classpath

"John Keiser" <jkeiser@iname.com> writes:

> Could somebody *please* speak up and say what the heck is the deal
> with the AWT?

Transvirtual depends on the ability to relicense their AWT under
non-GPL'd terms to companies that are unable to use GPL'd code.  If
the FSF were to relicense the AWT under libgcc-like terms, this would
undercut that stream of revenue for Transvirtual.  Transvirtual has
contributed a good deal of code to the free software community, and
the FSF therefore decided upon a course of action that would harm
neither the free software community nor Transvirtual.  The AWT was
therefore excluded from the libgcj merger agreement.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
@ 2000-04-01  0:00 Tom Tromey
  2000-04-01  0:00 ` John Keiser
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Java Discuss List; +Cc: Classpath Project

We're pleased to announce the relicensing of libgcj and Classpath.
The new license, which will apply to all parts of both projects (with
the exception of the AWT implementation in Classpath) will be the GPL,
plus a special exception which allows its use in non-GPL applications.
Ownership of libgcj will be assigned to the FSF.

We intend to merge the libgcj and Classpath class libraries, choosing
the best implementation of each class.  In the end, libgcj will use
Classpath (without AWT) as an upstream source for its class libraries.

     - The libgcj and Classpath hackers

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* RE: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00 libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation Tom Tromey
@ 2000-04-01  0:00 ` John Keiser
  2000-04-01  0:00   ` Tom Tromey
  2000-04-01  0:00   ` Paul Fisher
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: John Keiser @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tromey, Java Discuss List; +Cc: Classpath Project

Could somebody *please* speak up and say what the heck is the deal with the
AWT?  I do not remember ever hearing an explanation of that nonsense.  Is
there reasoning behind it?  Perhaps because of the licensing of the native
peers?

--John

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Tromey [ mailto:tromey@cygnus.com ]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 2:50 PM
To: Java Discuss List
Cc: Classpath Project
Subject: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation


We're pleased to announce the relicensing of libgcj and Classpath.
The new license, which will apply to all parts of both projects (with
the exception of the AWT implementation in Classpath) will be the GPL,
plus a special exception which allows its use in non-GPL applications.
Ownership of libgcj will be assigned to the FSF.

We intend to merge the libgcj and Classpath class libraries, choosing
the best implementation of each class.  In the end, libgcj will use
Classpath (without AWT) as an upstream source for its class libraries.

     - The libgcj and Classpath hackers


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* RE: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00 ` John Keiser
@ 2000-04-01  0:00   ` Tom Tromey
  2000-04-01  0:00   ` Paul Fisher
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Keiser; +Cc: tromey, Java Discuss List, Classpath Project

>>>>> "John" == John Keiser <jkeiser@iname.com> writes:

John> Could somebody *please* speak up and say what the heck is the
John> deal with the AWT?  I do not remember ever hearing an
John> explanation of that nonsense.  Is there reasoning behind it?
John> Perhaps because of the licensing of the native peers?

Stallman was adamant that AWT not be relicensed under more liberal
terms.  It doesn't have anything to do with the native peers.  You'll
have to ask him if you want more details.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00                     ` Mark Wielaard
@ 2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Tom Tromey
  2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Per Bothner
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Wielaard; +Cc: java-discuss

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:

Mark> But what if I personally want to combine a GPLed AWT (or any
Mark> other GPLed code) with libgjc would I then end up with a normal
Mark> (that is without special execption) GPL library? And could I
Mark> develop pure GPL (desktop) applications with such a combination?

Yes and yes.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00   ` Alexandre Oliva
@ 2000-04-01  0:00     ` Joshua R. Poulson
  2000-04-01  0:00       ` Alexandre Oliva
  2000-04-01  0:00     ` Tom Tromey
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Joshua R. Poulson @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alexandre Oliva; +Cc: java-discuss

> Can't we just refrain from adding the exception clause to the merged
> AWT?

It's better for the package to have a single license that's simple
and might actually be read by a prospective developer.

--jrp


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00       ` Bryce McKinlay
@ 2000-04-01  0:00         ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00         ` Anthony Green
  2000-04-01  0:00         ` Paul Fisher
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Per Bothner @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bryce McKinlay; +Cc: Java Discuss List

Bryce McKinlay <bryce@albatross.co.nz> writes:

> - LGPL does NOT prohibit static linking of LGPL'ed code into a proprietary
> application, however it does require that a dynamically linked or
> re-linkable version of the application must also be made available. (this
> is why cyghat doesnt like it?)

First, note there is no exception for embedded systems, for which
dynamic linking is usually not an option.  Second, even if proprietary
applications *could* use LGPL'd libraries, it adds significant extra
hassle, and enough extra complication and uncertainly that it would
drive many customers elsewhere.  Thus LGPL is not, never has been,
and probably never will be an license that Cygnus/RedHat can accept
for target libraries (i.e. those that get linked into customer
applications).
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* RE: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00 Boehm, Hans
@ 2000-04-01  0:00 ` Tom Tromey
  2000-04-01  0:00   ` Alexandre Oliva
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Boehm, Hans; +Cc: 'Tom Tromey', John Keiser, Java Discuss List

>>>>> "Hans" == Boehm, Hans <hboehm@exch.hpl.hp.com> writes:

Hans> Could someone explain the intent here, if not the motivation?
Hans> If I package a compiled version of the AWT in a dynamic library,
Hans> I can presumably still ship it with a proprietary application?
Hans> If I link it in statically, the whole program must be covered by
Hans> the GPL?  If I use any part of the library other than the AWT,
Hans> I'm fine either way?

I can't speak for Classpath.  I removed the classpath list from the
followups.

We aren't going to put the Classpath AWT into libgcj.  (We will remove
it from the tree before we import Classpath into libgcj.)  We want
libgcj to be usable by basically everybody.

You will be able to statically link applications using libgcj with no
problem.  If you want AWT, for now you're on your own :-(

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00   ` Alexandre Oliva
  2000-04-01  0:00     ` Joshua R. Poulson
@ 2000-04-01  0:00     ` Tom Tromey
  2000-04-01  0:00       ` Bryce McKinlay
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alexandre Oliva; +Cc: Tom Tromey, Boehm, Hans, John Keiser, Java Discuss List

>> You will be able to statically link applications using libgcj with no
>> problem.  If you want AWT, for now you're on your own :-(

Alexandre> Can't we just refrain from adding the exception clause to
Alexandre> the merged AWT?

I think it is a bad idea to put a GPL'd library into libgcj.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00 pohl
@ 2000-04-01  0:00 ` Tom Tromey
  2000-04-01  0:00   ` Anthony Green
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pohl; +Cc: java-discuss

>>>>> ">" == pohl  <pohl@gallup.com> writes:

Tom> The new license, which will apply to all parts of both projects 
Tom> (with the exception of the AWT implementation in Classpath) will 
Tom> be the GPL, plus a special exception which allows its use in 
Tom> non-GPL applications.

>> Does it have a name?  How does it differ from the LGPL, which
>> also is the GPL plus a special exception to let non-GPL apps
>> link against it?

The license does not have a name.
It is similar to the libgcc license, except that it does not require
you to link your program with gcc.
I don't have the exact text handy right this moment, unfortunately.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00                   ` Per Bothner
@ 2000-04-01  0:00                     ` Mark Wielaard
  2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Tom Tromey
  2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Per Bothner
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Mark Wielaard @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: java-discuss

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 06:43:47AM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> 
> The point is that there will be no GPL-licensed
> AWT, not that we don't want AWT - of course we do.  (However, we do
> want it configurable, so you can build libgcj without AWT if you're
> constrained for space.)

But what if I personally want to combine a GPLed AWT (or any other GPLed code)
with libgjc would I then end up with a normal (that is without special
execption) GPL library? And could I develop pure GPL (desktop) applications
with such a combination?

Thanks,

Mark

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00                 ` David Pettersson
@ 2000-04-01  0:00                   ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00                     ` Mark Wielaard
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Per Bothner @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Pettersson; +Cc: java-discuss

David Pettersson <dapet@mai.liu.se> writes:

> Doe's this mean there will be no part of awt in libjava after the merge?
> Will the parts that was in libjava before merge (?) be still there?

The latter - there is no reason to remove the very little existing
AWT code, unless it is replaced by something more real.

> Will awt be rewritten from scratch for libjava or will there be no awt
> at all?

Presumably the former.  The point is that there will be no GPL-licensed
AWT, not that we don't want AWT - of course we do.  (However, we do
want it configurable, so you can build libgcj without AWT if you're
constrained for space.)
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2000-04-01  0:00   ` Anthony Green
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Green @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tromey; +Cc: pohl, java-discuss

Tom wrote:
> I don't have the exact text handy right this moment, unfortunately.

 /* As a special exception, if you link this library with other files
    to produce an executable, this library does not by itself cause
    the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public
    License.  This exception does not however invalidate any other
    reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU
    General Public License.  */

AG

-- 
Anthony Green                                                        Red Hat
                                                       Sunnyvale, California

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
@ 2000-04-01  0:00 pohl
  2000-04-01  0:00 ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: pohl @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: java-discuss

> The new license, which will apply to all parts of both projects 
> (with the exception of the AWT implementation in Classpath) will 
> be the GPL, plus a special exception which allows its use in 
> non-GPL applications.

Does it have a name?  How does it differ from the LGPL, which
also is the GPL plus a special exception to let non-GPL apps
link against it?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* RE: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
@ 2000-04-01  0:00 Boehm, Hans
  2000-04-01  0:00 ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Boehm, Hans @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'Tom Tromey', John Keiser; +Cc: Java Discuss List, Classpath Project

Could someone explain the intent here, if not the motivation?  If I package
a compiled version of the AWT in a dynamic library, I can presumably still
ship it with a proprietary application?  If I link it in statically, the
whole program must be covered by the GPL?  If I use any part of the library
other than the AWT, I'm fine either way?

Hans

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Tromey [ mailto:tromey@cygnus.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 9:18 AM
To: John Keiser
Cc: tromey@cygnus.com; Java Discuss List; Classpath Project
Subject: RE: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation


>>>>> "John" == John Keiser <jkeiser@iname.com> writes:

John> Could somebody *please* speak up and say what the heck is the
John> deal with the AWT?  I do not remember ever hearing an
John> explanation of that nonsense.  Is there reasoning behind it?
John> Perhaps because of the licensing of the native peers?

Stallman was adamant that AWT not be relicensed under more liberal
terms.  It doesn't have anything to do with the native peers.  You'll
have to ask him if you want more details.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00               ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00                 ` Godmar Back
@ 2000-04-01  0:00                 ` David Pettersson
  2000-04-01  0:00                   ` Per Bothner
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: David Pettersson @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: java-discuss

Hi!

Just to let me get things right in this discussion ...

Doe's this mean there will be no part of awt in libjava after the merge?
Will the parts that was in libjava before merge (?) be still there?

Will awt be rewritten from scratch for libjava or will there be no awt
at all?

David.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2000-04-01  0:00   ` Alexandre Oliva
  2000-04-01  0:00     ` Joshua R. Poulson
  2000-04-01  0:00     ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Boehm, Hans, John Keiser, Java Discuss List

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 618 bytes --]

On Mar  7, 2000, Tom Tromey <tromey@cygnus.com> wrote:

>>>>>> "Hans" == Boehm, Hans <hboehm@exch.hpl.hp.com> writes:

> You will be able to statically link applications using libgcj with no
> problem.  If you want AWT, for now you're on your own :-(

Can't we just refrain from adding the exception clause to the merged
AWT?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva     http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/     Enjoy Guaraná
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company        aoliva@{redhat, cygnus}.com
Free Software Developer and Evangelist    CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp
oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}   Write to mailing lists, not to me

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00       ` Bryce McKinlay
  2000-04-01  0:00         ` Per Bothner
@ 2000-04-01  0:00         ` Anthony Green
  2000-04-01  0:00         ` Paul Fisher
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Green @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bryce; +Cc: tromey, oliva, hboehm, jkeiser, java-discuss

Bryce wrote:
> The classpath AWT is not GPL'd, its LGPL'd.

As was mentioned earlier, Stallman intends to change it and future
versions of the Classpath AWT to the GPL.

> - some components of gcc are already licensed under the LGPL

libgcc, libstdc++ and libio certainly aren't.  What components are you
talking about?  The GCC developers go to great lengths to make sure
that no GPL'd or LGPL'd code go in these runtime libraries.

> - LGPL does NOT prohibit static linking of LGPL'ed code into a proprietary
> application, however it does require that a dynamically linked or
> re-linkable version of the application must also be made available. (this
> is why cyghat doesnt like it?)

In this scenario, the LGPL is totally inappropriate for java library
drop-in replacement because of this clause:

   You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
   Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
   this License.  You must supply a copy of this License.  If the work
   during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
   copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference
   directing the user to the copy of this License.

AG

-- 
Anthony Green                                                        Red Hat
                                                       Sunnyvale, California

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00                   ` Per Bothner
@ 2000-04-01  0:00                     ` Godmar Back
  2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Godmar Back @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: Godmar Back, java-discuss

> 
> Note that RMS sees that leaving something underspecified can be
> a feature, partly because it makes it easier to talk projects
> that are in the legal gray zone into making their code more free.
> (For example, the NeXT Objective-C compiler.)

It seems that's a two-sided sword:
Things that RMS likes to leave underspecified, other holders may not 
enforce.  This could conceivably lead to legal precedents that RMS may 
not like.

> 
> > Redhat is big enough now; they should be able to afford to draft and 
> > publish their own license,
> 
> That's not the point; the problem is *Transvirtual's* license,
> not RedHat's.
> 

Oh, I totally agree.  They should either not use the GPL or amend it
to clarify their intentions.  I think people like Alexandre have asked 
for that already.  Personally, I like Tim's position (--on how to interpret 
the license in the case we're discussing--), but I think a clarification
that is part of the license document wouldn't hurt.

In general, however, what are you/gcj/Redhat/other GPL-users going to 
do?  Rely on people with whom you disagree changing their ways or set 
your own rules and interpretations in the domain you control?

	- Godmar

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00         ` Paul Fisher
  2000-04-01  0:00           ` Per Bothner
@ 2000-04-01  0:00           ` Bryce McKinlay
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Bryce McKinlay @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Fisher, java-discuss

Paul Fisher wrote:

> >From the Kaffe licensing FAQ:
>
>     Can I run proprietary Java applications and native JNI libraries
>     under Kaffe?
>
>     Yes, you can. Kaffe's choice of GPL does not affect your ability
>     to run any Java or JNI-based code that you could run on any other
>     Java virtual machine.
>
> The same would apply to running Java applications under the GPL'd
> Classpath AWT.

Does this also apply to Java applications running under the Classpath
AWT in a natively compiled gcj environment?

regards

  [ bryce ]


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00                     ` Mark Wielaard
  2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Tom Tromey
@ 2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Per Bothner
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Per Bothner @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Wielaard; +Cc: java-discuss

Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:

> But what if I personally want to combine a GPLed AWT (or any other
> GPLed code) with libgjc would I then end up with a normal (that is
> without special execption) GPL library? And could I develop pure GPL
> (desktop) applications with such a combination?

Yes.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00                     ` Godmar Back
@ 2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Godmar Back; +Cc: Per Bothner, java-discuss

>>>>> "Godmar" == Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> writes:

Godmar> In general, however, what are you/gcj/Redhat/other GPL-users
Godmar> going to do?  Rely on people with whom you disagree changing
Godmar> their ways or set your own rules and interpretations in the
Godmar> domain you control?

I'm not sure I really know what you mean.  We've chosen a license that
is compatible with our goals.  I think it is clear that the plain GPL
is not compatible with our goals, even given the RMS/Tim
interpretation.  I don't think the Classpath AWT will go into libgcj
without a license change.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00                 ` Godmar Back
@ 2000-04-01  0:00                   ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00                     ` Godmar Back
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Per Bothner @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Godmar Back; +Cc: java-discuss

Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> writes:

> I believe the underlying problem is that the copyright holders that are 
> using the GPL/LGPL did not agree to adhere to a binding interpretation of
> the GPL/LGPL.

Yes, there are some terms (like "program") that are rather vague.

Note that RMS sees that leaving something underspecified can be
a feature, partly because it makes it easier to talk projects
that are in the legal gray zone into making their code more free.
(For example, the NeXT Objective-C compiler.)

> Redhat is big enough now; they should be able to afford to draft and 
> publish their own license,

That's not the point; the problem is *Transvirtual's* license,
not RedHat's.

(And GCJ is part of Gcc and a GNU project, it is preferable
to use a GNU license - or at the very least something compatible
with the GPL.)

> like Netscape/AOL and Apple already do.

I'm not sure these other licenses are much clearer (but I
haven't studied them).

> ps: regarding "what's right" etc., if someone uses GPL'd kaffe to run a 
> proprietary java app after consulting Tim and doing so is in contradiction 
> to what you think the words of the GPL say, then IMO that's still far from 
> being "wrong"; so let's not unnecessarily add an ethical or moral dimension 
> here.

I said (IIRC) "morally / legally".  In this case, there is still the legal
uncertainty, which would make lawyers less than comfortable.  Sorry for
using phrasing that could be easily mis-read.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00     ` Tom Tromey
@ 2000-04-01  0:00       ` Bryce McKinlay
  2000-04-01  0:00         ` Per Bothner
                           ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Bryce McKinlay @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Boehm, Hans, John Keiser, Java Discuss List

Tom Tromey wrote:

> I think it is a bad idea to put a GPL'd library into libgcj.

/* Component.java -- Superclass of all AWT components
/*
/* Copyright (c) 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
/* Written by Aaron M. Renn (arenn@urbanophile.com)
/*
/* This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
/* it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as
published
/* by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or
/* (at your option) any later verion.

The classpath AWT is not GPL'd, its LGPL'd. There is an important
distinction. I dont see how it could retrospectively be made less free by
being converted to a GPL license - old copies would still be licensed under
the LGPL.

Some important points about the LGPL (correct me if I'm wrong):

- its the very same license that glibc uses.
- some components of gcc are already licensed under the LGPL
- LGPL does NOT prohibit static linking of LGPL'ed code into a proprietary
application, however it does require that a dynamically linked or
re-linkable version of the application must also be made available. (this
is why cyghat doesnt like it?)

regards

  [ bryce ]


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00         ` Paul Fisher
@ 2000-04-01  0:00           ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00             ` Jules Bean
  2000-04-01  0:00             ` Godmar Back
  2000-04-01  0:00           ` Bryce McKinlay
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Per Bothner @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Fisher; +Cc: java-discuss

Paul Fisher <rao@gnu.org> writes:

> >From the Kaffe licensing FAQ:
> 
>     Can I run proprietary Java applications and native JNI libraries
>     under Kaffe?
> 
>     Yes, you can. Kaffe's choice of GPL does not affect your ability
>     to run any Java or JNI-based code that you could run on any other
>     Java virtual machine.
> 
> The same would apply to running Java applications under the GPL'd
> Classpath AWT.

Unfortunately, an FAQ is not a legal document.  The words of the GPL
do not support this interpretation.  More to the point, it seems to
contradict how the GPL has traditionally been interpreted, including
historical pronuncements from the FSF.  What seems to be intended is a
"GPL with modifications" - i.e. more-or-less what Cygnus has been
proposing all along.

If the FSF were to issue a revised GPL, or an *authoritative*
addendum to the GPL, it would be different matter.  But RMS
has a tendency to prefer to deliberately leave some things
under-specified.  I don't think that should be acceptable for GCJ.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00           ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00             ` Jules Bean
@ 2000-04-01  0:00             ` Godmar Back
  2000-04-01  0:00               ` Per Bothner
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Godmar Back @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: Paul Fisher, java-discuss

> 
> Paul Fisher <rao@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > >From the Kaffe licensing FAQ:
> > 
> >     Can I run proprietary Java applications and native JNI libraries
> >     under Kaffe?
> > 
> >     Yes, you can. Kaffe's choice of GPL does not affect your ability
> >     to run any Java or JNI-based code that you could run on any other
> >     Java virtual machine.
> > 
> > The same would apply to running Java applications under the GPL'd
> > Classpath AWT.
> 
> Unfortunately, an FAQ is not a legal document.  The words of the GPL
> do not support this interpretation.  More to the point, it seems to
> contradict how the GPL has traditionally been interpreted, including
> historical pronuncements from the FSF.  What seems to be intended is a
> "GPL with modifications" - i.e. more-or-less what Cygnus has been
> proposing all along.
> 
> If the FSF were to issue a revised GPL, or an *authoritative*
> addendum to the GPL, it would be different matter.  But RMS
> has a tendency to prefer to deliberately leave some things
> under-specified.  I don't think that should be acceptable for GCJ.

In all this discussion, please don't forget that the interpretation of
a license only matters should a copyright owner sue a licensee
for copyright infringement.  While RMS drafted the GPL, his views on
the GPL are certainly not binding; as far as such specifics are
concerned, they may not matter much to other copyright owners who
release code under the GPL or LGPL.  If RMS had wanted to have a final
say in how to interpret the GPL, he should have restricted distribution
of the license document.

TVT's interpretation applies to code Transvirtual owns.  The portion
of the FAQ quoted above was written by me after email exchanges with
Tim.  More to the point, it was shown to the public for some time now
on a webpage sponsored and endorsed by Transvirtual.  Tim has also publicly
confirmed it.  In other words, legal document or not, I believe that a 
licensee would have a good case against Transvirtual if it used the code 
in the way the FAQ suggests; Transvirtual would have to deny endorsing 
that statement and they would have to convince a judge or jury that
they've acted in good faith.  Given the reality,  I believe this is 
such an outlandish scenario not even worth thinking about.
So for all practical purposes, you can run any Java or JNI-based code 
on kaffe that you could run on any other JVM.


Nevertheless, it would clearly be beneficial to come up with an
agreed-upon interpretation of many or most copyright owners who release
code under a GPL/LGPL license.

	- Godmar

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00       ` Bryce McKinlay
  2000-04-01  0:00         ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00         ` Anthony Green
@ 2000-04-01  0:00         ` Paul Fisher
  2000-04-01  0:00           ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00           ` Bryce McKinlay
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Paul Fisher @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: java-discuss

Bryce McKinlay <bryce@albatross.co.nz> writes:

> The classpath AWT is not GPL'd, its LGPL'd.

The FSF has tentatively decided to release the AWT under GPL'd terms.
Transvirtual and the FSF have finally agreed upon how the GPL should
apply to the standard libraries for supporting the Java language.

From the Kaffe licensing FAQ:

    Can I run proprietary Java applications and native JNI libraries
    under Kaffe?

    Yes, you can. Kaffe's choice of GPL does not affect your ability
    to run any Java or JNI-based code that you could run on any other
    Java virtual machine.

The same would apply to running Java applications under the GPL'd
Classpath AWT.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00             ` Godmar Back
@ 2000-04-01  0:00               ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00                 ` Godmar Back
  2000-04-01  0:00                 ` David Pettersson
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Per Bothner @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: java-discuss

Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> writes:

> In all this discussion, please don't forget that the interpretation of
> a license only matters should a copyright owner sue a licensee
> for copyright infringement.

No;  some people believe in doing what is right and/or legal, not just
what they can get away with.  In addition to ethical concerns, there
is also the uncertaintly that comes when the informal statements
contradict the formal license.

> So for all practical purposes, you can run any Java or JNI-based code 
> on kaffe that you could run on any other JVM.

But what about CNI-based code?  What about GCJ, which does not use
Kaffe?

Anyway, there isn't much point in arguing this.  Unmodified GPL is not
acceptable for libgcj, at least any version maintained and distributed
by Cygnus/RedHat, and a statement on a web page is not a sufficient
modification.  (I can't speak for RedHat, but this is my opinion, and
I'm quite sure it is also the opinion of the Cygnus Gcj group.)
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00           ` Per Bothner
@ 2000-04-01  0:00             ` Jules Bean
  2000-04-01  0:00             ` Godmar Back
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Jules Bean @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: Paul Fisher, java-discuss

On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 03:39:49PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> Paul Fisher <rao@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > >From the Kaffe licensing FAQ:
> > 
> >     Can I run proprietary Java applications and native JNI libraries
> >     under Kaffe?
> > 
> >     Yes, you can. Kaffe's choice of GPL does not affect your ability
> >     to run any Java or JNI-based code that you could run on any other
> >     Java virtual machine.
> > 
> > The same would apply to running Java applications under the GPL'd
> > Classpath AWT.
> 
> Unfortunately, an FAQ is not a legal document.  The words of the GPL
> do not support this interpretation.  More to the point, it seems to
> contradict how the GPL has traditionally been interpreted, including
> historical pronuncements from the FSF.  What seems to be intended is a
> "GPL with modifications" - i.e. more-or-less what Cygnus has been
> proposing all along.

I don't often speak up on this list, and I have no desire to start a
license flamewar.  However, for the benefit of those less familar with 
this territory, a couple of points. The GPL could only conceivably
apply in this case of the mere execution of a program under kaffe
constitutes the creation of a derived work (of kaffe). 

This is the grey area in which dynamic linking resides.  An
interpretation which convinces me (and I believe that RMS agrees with
me in broad brush strokes, if not in some of the details) is that a
program always intended to dynamically link against libXYZ (where XYZ
is GPL) is essentially a derived work of libXYZ (by considering the
parallel with static linking, and the fact that the difference is a
mere technicality irrelevant to law).  However, I'd say that a program 
compiled against a generic interface and quite capable of dynamically
linking against libXYZ or libABC is a derived work of
neither. (interfaces are not copyrightable) (this is the argument by
which the mere creation of a working harmony project would make KDE ok,
even though KDE continues to run against Qt)

Similarly, I'd argue that an (evil) java program which in some
underhand way used some proprietry kaffe VM features might be argued
to be a derivative work of kaffe, but a java program which can be run
under any VM is not a derivative work of kaffe, irrespective of the
fact it *can* be run under kaffe.

Replace kaffe with libgcj, the paragraph still makes sense ;-)

You don't have to agree.  If you represent a company, consult a lawyer 
and don't just follow my advice. Think before flaming (I've been down
this path too often...)

Jules

-- 
Jules Bean                          |        Any sufficiently advanced 
jules@{debian.org,jellybean.co.uk}  |  technology is indistinguishable
jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk              |               from a perl script

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00     ` Joshua R. Poulson
@ 2000-04-01  0:00       ` Alexandre Oliva
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joshua R. Poulson; +Cc: java-discuss

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 727 bytes --]

On Mar  7, 2000, "Joshua R. Poulson" <jrp@pun.org> wrote:

>> Can't we just refrain from adding the exception clause to the merged
>> AWT?

> It's better for the package to have a single license that's simple
> and might actually be read by a prospective developer.

Of course.  But if the choice is between no AWT and a GPLed AWT, I'm
all for the latter.  Well, actually, I'd be all for the latter
regardless of any other options :-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva     http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/     Enjoy Guaraná
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company        aoliva@{redhat, cygnus}.com
Free Software Developer and Evangelist    CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp
oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}   Write to mailing lists, not to me

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation
  2000-04-01  0:00               ` Per Bothner
@ 2000-04-01  0:00                 ` Godmar Back
  2000-04-01  0:00                   ` Per Bothner
  2000-04-01  0:00                 ` David Pettersson
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Godmar Back @ 2000-04-01  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Per Bothner; +Cc: java-discuss

> 
> Anyway, there isn't much point in arguing this.  

I believe the underlying problem is that the copyright holders that are 
using the GPL/LGPL did not agree to adhere to a binding interpretation of
the GPL/LGPL.  Furthermore, there are no legal precedents that could be
of help.  Short of restricting the use of the GPL/LGPL, I see no way 
how that could be fixed, and there won't indeed be much point in arguing
this.

Redhat is big enough now; they should be able to afford to draft and 
publish their own license, like Netscape/AOL and Apple already do.

	- Godmar

ps: regarding "what's right" etc., if someone uses GPL'd kaffe to run a 
proprietary java app after consulting Tim and doing so is in contradiction 
to what you think the words of the GPL say, then IMO that's still far from 
being "wrong"; so let's not unnecessarily add an ethical or moral dimension 
here.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2000-04-01  0:00 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-04-01  0:00 libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation Tom Tromey
2000-04-01  0:00 ` John Keiser
2000-04-01  0:00   ` Tom Tromey
2000-04-01  0:00   ` Paul Fisher
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-04-01  0:00 pohl
2000-04-01  0:00 ` Tom Tromey
2000-04-01  0:00   ` Anthony Green
2000-04-01  0:00 Boehm, Hans
2000-04-01  0:00 ` Tom Tromey
2000-04-01  0:00   ` Alexandre Oliva
2000-04-01  0:00     ` Joshua R. Poulson
2000-04-01  0:00       ` Alexandre Oliva
2000-04-01  0:00     ` Tom Tromey
2000-04-01  0:00       ` Bryce McKinlay
2000-04-01  0:00         ` Per Bothner
2000-04-01  0:00         ` Anthony Green
2000-04-01  0:00         ` Paul Fisher
2000-04-01  0:00           ` Per Bothner
2000-04-01  0:00             ` Jules Bean
2000-04-01  0:00             ` Godmar Back
2000-04-01  0:00               ` Per Bothner
2000-04-01  0:00                 ` Godmar Back
2000-04-01  0:00                   ` Per Bothner
2000-04-01  0:00                     ` Godmar Back
2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Tom Tromey
2000-04-01  0:00                 ` David Pettersson
2000-04-01  0:00                   ` Per Bothner
2000-04-01  0:00                     ` Mark Wielaard
2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Tom Tromey
2000-04-01  0:00                       ` Per Bothner
2000-04-01  0:00           ` Bryce McKinlay

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).