New license wording

Tue Jan 22 19:36:00 GMT 2002

Etienne M. Gagnon wrote:
>>Couldn't any gcj application be thought of as being "based on" the 
>>libgcj library? How do we know precisely what the difference between 
>>being "based on" and simply "using" the library is?
>>>>I'll try to answer this one. "Based on" means that you included some
>of Classpath's source code ("as is" or modified ) in your application.
>The simple act of linking with a library is considered "using" the
>library. Linking, here can be interpreted as "binary linking"
>(runtime) or even some form of compile-time linking like using
>Classpath as the class library for compiling your application to
>bytecode using Jikes.
>
But what about static linking? Being able to create a statically linked 
binary which includes components of libgcj is, I thought, a very 
important feature of this license.
>The terms used in the Classpath exception take their source in the GNU
>licenses "literature". So, in the GNU LGPL preamble you can read:
>>[... Pay close attention to the difference between a "work based on
>the library" and a "work that uses the library". The former contains
>code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be combined
>with the library in order to run. ...]
>The LGPL also says the following (the LGPL is not applicable here 
because it is a completely different license, however the definition it 
provides makes me nervous about the wording of our license):
[A "work based on the Library" means either the Library or any 
derivative work under
copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Library or a
portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated
straightforwardly into another language. ]
This would imply to me that static linking is not allowed under the new 
license, in which case I would argue for this change to be reverted or, 
at least, for the "based on" bit to be changed or deleted.
regards
Bryce.