[Kaffe] can the classpath project be used with Kaffe.

[Moses DeJong]

On 9 Feb 1999, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Feb  9, 1999, Moses DeJong <dejong at cs.umn.edu> wrote:
> 
> > On 9 Feb 1999, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Feb  9, 1999, Moses DeJong <dejong at cs.umn.edu> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > I was just reading up on the classpath project and it seem that they
> >> > are using the LGPL while Kaffe uses the GPL. Does this mean that classpath
> >> > code can not be used in the Kaffe project?
> 
> >> Nope, LGPL is compatible with GPL.
> 
> > What exactly are you basing this statement on? I am no lawyer but my
> > impression of the GPL is that it does not allow any linking to code
> > that is not also covered under the GPL (or equivilant license).

Well, I do not want to start a "useless debate" but I am still a little
confused about what you quoted here. This is from the LGPL license right?
I do not see what terms in the LGPL have to do with Kaffe as it is not
licensed under the LGPL.

> The GNU LGPL says:
> 
>   3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
> License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library.  [...]
> 
> Furthermore, the GPL is compatible with any other Free Software
> license, since its only point is that you must make the source code
> freely available whenever you distribute your program.  You can do
> that for LGPLed, BSD-like licensed and public domain code, so these
> can be used together with GPLed programs.
> 
> > This also brings up another "license" question. It also seems like using
> > JNI to "link" to the Kaffe JVM with code that is not covered under the
> > GPL would not be allowed.

Well, my reading of the GPL seem to indicate that it covers more than
just distribution of the program or derived works.

<SNIP FROM GPL>
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as
expressly provided under this License.
</SNIP>

My impression is that is also covers the act of making a copy of the
program. The implication is that you must agree to the terms of the
license (no linking to non GPL code) in order to be granted the right
to copy it (put it on your computer). The GPL also says the license
is automatically terminated if I do not follow it's rules.

<SNIP FROM GPL>
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the
Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights
under this License.
</SNIP>

This would seem to imply that linking a GPLed program to a non GPLed
program would void the GPL license. I would then have to stop using
Kaffe because I would not have a valid license.

> According to the GPL, only if you distribute a binary that is actually
> linked with the library, because the GPL only covers the distribution
> of programs, not what a user can do with a copy he's got.  Anybody is
> free to run non-GPLed code with Kaffe, even if that involves JNI code, 
> but it would be nice if this was explicitly stated in the license
> terms, so as not to leave any space for doubt.
> 
> > Tcl is covered under a
> > "BSD like" free license. I checked the README for Kaffe but it does
> > not contain any "exceptions" to the GPL.
> 
> No exceptions are needed.
> 
> > I would think two common exceptions that you would want to allow are
> > "linking" to kaffe using JNI and allowing people to run non GPLed
> > .class file.

I am not really sure if it is needed but it would be nice to put
in language to state it once and for all. I am not trying to be
a pain or anything, I just want people to be able to use my Tcl/Java
package with Kaffe without ANY worry of license issues biting them
in the rear end.

later
mo dejong
dejong at cs.umn.edu

> These are not really needed, but it would be nice to do it, in order
> to avoid useless debates in the future.
> 
> -- 
> Alexandre Oliva  http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva  aoliva@{acm.org}
> oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
> Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
>