Okay, there is a solution that is rather expedient to fixing the classpath/classlib licensing problems. The FSF has within it's power the ability to relicense the software under new terms and conditions or could in fact dual license the software under both the current license and a suitable Apache friendly license. All that is required is to win the argument with Richard Stallman or Bradley Kuhn. And that would have to start with getting most of the committers on board with the idea and the project maintainer. This is how we did the license change from LGPL to GPL+exception. Gcj (gcc) needed us to switch from LGPL to the exception bits because it is what they were already using to make certain use cases, such as delivery of a software controlled toothbrush, work, without requiring the redistribution of object files suitable for re-linking the application on your toothbrush. I don't really see the FSF backing down from the point of view that the users of free software should have the right to modify and release the software and Apache is unlikely to change either, as they have benefited enormously (in terms of brand at least) from letting anyone embed their software without having to divulge the source code to users. Given that you can already ship products with closed binary-only java class libraries from many sources adding one more isn't going to change that world or hurt a user. But, we can benefit enormously from combining our energies with Harmony to deliver a free J2SE 5 faster than anyone thinks is possible. So, given these things and my love for this project, I would really like the FSF to allow the developers to provide Classpath under an Apache compatible license in addition to the current licensing scheme, at least until the FSF and the Apache Foundation resolve their own license incompatibilities. We have no guarantees they will ever work things out and waiting a year to find that out is waiting a year too long. Thanks for letting me share, Brian (former maintainer)
