On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:49:32PM +0100, Philippe Laporte wrote: > >There are just two sides with different opinions. They have their opinion. > >FSF/GNU classpath has theirs. > > > > > > Well then we all want to know what Nokia's legions of lawyers have to > say...:-) Absolutely. We're developers, not lawyers. That being said... The general (non-SableVM) common sense consensus should be that if your code can run unmodified on any JVM, Sun's especially, then really what license the JVM and class library themselves use is pretty irrelevant. This is using a common and published interface. Doing the above should be your aim anyway, to give businesses the most flexibility to use any JVM they can (be it CVM, SableVM, J9, Wonka, etc) With that dealt with, what your own application code links to (ie loading JNI libraries from application code or importing, say, the BouncyCastle java libraries for crypto) is entirely your problem - regardless of which JVM+Classlib you run under. Thanks, Steph -- ================================================================ Stephane Meslin-Weber Email: steph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Senior Software Engineer Web: http://odonata.tangency.co.uk ================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/attachments/20060307/cb3930ef/attachment.pgp
