[licensing@fsf.org: Re: [gnu.org #201605] Classpath code and licensing]

Thu Jun 24 15:13:00 GMT 2004

> Hmmm. It is kind of a generic answer. Maybe if we come up with specific
> lists of classes and code we can more easily negotiate some terms for
> sharing.

That's what I thought. My worry is that the code copyright is owned by
many developers and it will be a nightmare to agreement from all
parties.
> Or we can ask the eclipse board again about relicensing (or dual
> licensing) SWT under something (L)GPL compatible. Last time we asked
> them they seemed positive about that option, but they were going to spin
> off in their own Eclipse organization and were looking for a new
> "leader". As far as I understood the recent news it looks like they
> finally have a new executive director.

Well I could give them a try and see what they say. I'm not going to
hold my breath though.
I have to say, it looks to me like it's going to take so long to resolve
this kind of issue that it will take less time to just reimplement the
code in question.
I will try the Eclipse foundation though, if only in the hope I can 
save other developers some arsing about in the future. I'll let you know
how it goes.
Cheers,
Rob
-- 
=====================================================
Robin Rawson-Tetley
Animal Shelter Manager (http://sheltermanager.sf.net)
SwingWT (http://swingwt.sf.net)
I prefer encrypted email.
Download my public key at: http://rawsontetley.ath.cx/sfpk.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/java/attachments/20040624/4b3fbcf2/attachment.sig>