On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:49:42PM +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote: > > > Michael Koch wrote: > > >On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:28:10PM +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote: > > > > > >>- Sable has a large and active community > >> > >> > > > >In the last time the project seems to be very inactive except some mails > >on the lists. > > > > > > Not true. They just like to keep it low volume for some reason (which I > admittedly don't like much). Check again. > > Anyways, even a community of 2 is better than the JamVM community... When speaking to them on IRC they always say they have no time for sablevm currently ... I would call this inactive. > >>- Sable is LGPL. GPL does not work for maemo. Read why at > >>http://sablevm.org/wiki/License_FAQ. > >> > >> > > > >That is only the opinion of the SableVM people. Neither GNU classpath > >poeple nor FSF considers this to be correct. > > > > > > > So why do they still think so after such a long time? What would you say? > > What's the heuristic then? I dont know why but there is some dispute between sablevm and the rest of the classpath community since a longer time. I dont really know why and I would really like to get this solved. But I guess this will never happen. > If you link native to a GPL VM, then that code must also be GPL, no? > That is an absolute requirement in the embedded world... That is true. But running java bytecode in with a GPL vm and loading JNI libs during that doenst render all the java/native code you run with the VM to GPL. Cheers, Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/
