Query about Help Needed

Mon Apr 2 19:45:00 GMT 2001

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Note that there is also a (incomplete) java.awt implementation with
> gtk peers in GNU Classpath. This is the only package that is not going
> to be integrated into libgcj since it is still licensed under the LGPL.
> (libgcj is licensed under the GPL with a special linking exception)
> libgcj now has a different (incomplete) implementation under the libgcj
> license.

In my opinion, libgcj's java.awt code is already significantly better than
what is in classpath, so this is not really an issue anymore, except that
we'll want to merge the libgcj code back in to classpath one day.
> A while ago I spoke to Richard Stallman about this and he explained to
> me that the FSF didn't want to distribute an awt implementation under the
> libgcj license since Kaffe already had an GPLed version of java.awt and
> he didn't want to undermine the Transvirtual business model by releasing
> a GPL+linking exception version of the library.

The FSF have never said anything officially about this, so as far as I'm
concerned there is no problem - however I do think its worth discussing.
Now, I do not really know what Transvirtual's business model actually is,
but I do not see libgcj's AWT and their AWT as competitors. Kaffe's is a
lightweight peerless implementation which is obviously targeted towards
embedded devices. Ours is (planned to be) a more "traditional" peer-based
implementation which relies on GTK or other similar toolkit to work, so its
usefulness in embedded devices is governed by the capabilities and license
(ie: LGPL) of the toolkit. Besides, if we did end up writing a better AWT
than Kaffe's, Transvirtual get it for free and can use it to make their
products better if they want. Everybody's happy.
It may also be worth noting that Transvirtual already use GCJ (not
libgcj) in their PocketLinux products.
Its cool that RMS is making sure there are ways that companies can make
money while supporting free software, but this kind of protectionism and
placing restrictions on GCJ's feature set is definitely not the right way to
go about that.
regards
 [ bryce ]