Hi. Andrew John Hughes schrieb: > I find myself asking the same questions, and this is why I raised the > questions. I don't have all the answers either, and I'm sorry if the > original mail came across like I was dictating a particular position. > That wasn't the intention. FWIW, yes, both you and I have worked on > both the Classpath and OpenJDK codebases of late, as have Mark, Mario, > Christian and probably others - we're all in this together (although, > just to clarify, CPStringBuilder was based on an idea in GCJ and the > implementation (and its bugs) are original). I am also in this camp. :) > Unfortunately, such suppositions aren't worth much in legal terms (and > let's get the obvious IANAL disclaimer in here before I say any more). If that is the problem couldn't we get an official stance from Sun that prevents that? Something saying: "if some part of code from GNU Classpath looks similar to code in OpenJDK the FSF is not sued for copyright infringement". Dalibor? > an ideal world, both would be under GPLv3 and we'd share code between > the two as intended. On the other side, I've not seen as much code as > I'd expect (like the AWT peers) move into OpenJDK either, but I think > this is less legal and more process related. > > Dalibor, could you give us something from Sun's side on this issue? I am a bit confused about Sun's attitude towards (L)GPLv3. They have projects using only the GPLv2 (PhoneME), GPLv2 with an exception (OpenJDK) and soon they will also have the first project under the LGPLv3 namely OpenOffice.org. The missing 'or later' clause was the first thing that bothered me back then at FOSDEM'07. Too bad that this is such a hurdle these days ... :( Regards Robert
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
