Hi Dalibor, You just managed to insult the SableVM team. Please stop this; it is unworthy of a great project leader as you. To all involved in this latest waste of bandwidth, please stop this "falmewaring". I am tired of all this. As my team and me have been directly attacked, I have to answer a few claims. First, I have only replied to two messages of Michael Koch that reached the SableVM mailing-list. Unfortunately, original authors cross posted to other mailing lists, so my replies went there too. If you like SableVM, good. Use it, share it. It's all there free for you under the GNU LGPL license. If you don't like it, fine too. There's a lot of other free JVM's around. If you think that we're not developing it professionally, great. You can think whatever you want. But, if you intend to go to the public place to claim that we're not professional, then I'll have to step in and defend the reputation of my team. Dalibor, you might have a different interpretation of GNU licenses; there's no use insulting me, or trying to insinuate that I know nothing or that "the FSF" disagrees with me. For one thing, I have seen no FSF resolution claiming "Etienne Gagnon's interpretation is false", nor did I see the reverse. In any big organization, only resolutions voted by the administration or "official statements" of the organization leaders stand as this organization's opinion. Individuals working for the organization can express their thought; they are not those of the organization. Now a few facts. It appears that: a) according to you or Michael Koch (I don't remember exactly), some FSF legal counsels disagree with my interpretation the GNU GPL as applied to Java virtual machines, yet b) a few years ago, Richard Stallman's answered my questions about using the GNU GPL for SableVM, and he even proposed a GNU GPL exception for SableVM. You might actually remember that I reused this text as a basis for drafting the current GNU Classpath exception to the GNU GPL. (If you don't, others probably do). [If Richard Stallman didn't see a need for any exception to the GNU GPL for SableVM, I don't think he would have taken some of his very precious time to write an exception. Yet, he could have been wrong, too. He is human, after all.] After all these pointless debates, I came to the conclusion that probably both interpretations are right, but in differerent contexts. License interpretation is (as almost anything else in life) not black or white. It is probably useless to debate in the absolute about license interpretation. If it ever came down to a court case, at least here in Canada, the judge would take context into account. In conclusion, Dalibor, please stop the shouting and FUD claims. And, specially, stop insulting the SableVM website by claiming that it is obscure! It is not merely obscure, it is much, much darker: it is sable[*]. :-) Etienne [*] IIRC, "sable", in English, means "dark black". Dalibor Topic wrote: > SableVM choses to use GNU Classpath, which is cool. They chose not to > contribute to its development atm, which is cool, too, since they have > shown to be very, very hard to work together with in a professional way, > without turning discussions on their head with exactly this sort of > arrogant posturing that you've managed to do as well. Congratulations. -- Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/ SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/ SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 256 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/attachments/20060309/98641bd6/signature.pgp
