libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation

Sat Apr 1 00:00:00 GMT 2000

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