Hi, On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 13:25 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > In particular, I think we want to be sure that the various > tools are usable in a typical java environment -- so for instance I > think we want it to be clear to end users, packagers, etc, that it is > fine for 'ant' to load gjdoc (or any Classspath tool) from the > tools.jar. > > >From my perspective this would be simplest if we made sure all the > tools were also GPL+Exception. This would also make it simpler to > refactor code across the tool/core boundary. > > However, a relicense may not actually be required. A statement from > the FSF assuring people that this kind of use is allowable would > probably suffice. I'll bring it up with FSF legal. The copyright-clerk has just reviewed our FAQ and had some suggestions on making the wording more clear (which I need to incorporate). So it should be fresh on their minds. The GPLv3 also has a bit more clear/explicit text about usage of standard tools/interfaces which we might borrow for our FAQ. Cheers, Mark -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/attachments/20060402/abd2df69/attachment.pgp
