gcc 3.0

Wed Oct 18 02:36:00 GMT 2000

Hi,
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 11:11:34PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I mentioned this very scenario when we were negotiating the merger.
> He avoided the question.
>> I don't see how he can consistently be against this work. After all,
> if he is against us reimplementing it under the new license, then he
> would be undercutting Red Hat's business strategy -- something he
> promised me he would not do.
Valid points.
> I'm not going to worry about this until I get email about it from RMS.
> I think our current approach is fine.
Please ignore me if you want because I currently have no time to
merge the awt classes even if it was possible and the only (very small)
work I do on classpath/libgcj is for my own pleasure. But I still think
that it would be very good if we had one commen code base for the awt
classes.
libgcj does include some of the gtk peer awt classes from Classpath
under the LGPL (which makes sense since you need the LGPLed gtk+
to use it). But all the non-peer awt classes seem to be rewrites.
Maybe that is a good basis for a compromise? All peer classes from
Classpath (based on gtk) will be distributed under the LGPL, but
all non-peer classes will be distributed under the GPL+Exception.
We could try to contact Aaron Renn who wrote almost all the
non-peer awt classes for Classpath to see what he thinks.
Cheers,
Mark