[Kaffe] can the classpath project be used with Kaffe.
gback at cs.utah.edu
Tue Feb 9 23:13:25 PST 1999
Note: I'm reducing noise levels by combining three answers in one
convenient email. Other than that, the 'hit "d" for delete' disclaimer
> On Feb 10, 1999, Godmar Back <gback at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> > I can take pieces of classpath, add my own stuff and sell it as proprietary
> > software without releasing the source code to the pieces I added?
> Nope, you have to release the source code of the modified library, but
> not of the program that uses the library.
> > I still don't see the difference: everything that's added to both
> > classpath's and kaffe's libs would be contaminated (though RMS doesn't
> > like that term) and the source to it would have to be released if someone
> > wished to distribute it, for monetary reasons or not.
> The difference between GPL and LGPL is that, for an LGPLed library,
> its license does not require programs linked with it to be L?GPLed,
> while GPL does.
But later he said:
> > a) your java.beans/kaffe's java.io+lang
> > b) your java.beans/classpath's java.io+lang.
> > What you're saying is that you could keep your java.beans proprietary
> > in scenario b), but not in a)?
> Yes, as long as someone can show that you used a)
So java.beans in a) would be a program that only uses classpath's
java.io+lang, while java.beans in b) would be linked against kaffe's
java.io+lang and hence subject to contamination?
But I assume that if you created a modified version java.io' of
classpath/kaffe's java.io, then there is no question that you would
have to distribute the source under the LGPL/GPL?
> > Both classpath and kaffe's libs can run proprietary Java
> > applications without requiring their developers to release the
> > source code.
> It is possible to interpret the `linking' terms of the GPL in a sense
> that disallows this.
That's what I thought this discussion was about and that's why I seconded
your request for a clarification. However, I thought it was clear but
now it's not clear at all. What is the boundary that code would have to
leave in order to be not contaminated?
Is it a file boundary? Directory boundary? Package boundary? Extension
boundary? The library/application boundary? Does it require direct
symbolic references to be considered linked? What about classloaders
that perform bytecode rewriting at run-time?
What if your java.beans uses gnu.whatever, but it also relies on a
java.io, which in turn relies on gnu.whatever. Does that change the
Then Moses wrote:
> I assume you are talking about releasing the code for use in both the
> classpath and kaffe libs. In this case, I would think you would need
> to release it under the LGPL for use in Classpath. If it was going to
> be distributed with Kaffe, then you would need to release it with a
> GPL license. Of course this all depends on how you define the
> "linking" terminology in the GPL. I am facing this situation right
> now as I am currently working on a replacement for the
> sun.tools.jar.Main program that I would like see added to both the
> Kaffe and Classpath projects.
Moses, if you own the code, you can release it under as many licenses
as you like. We'd certainly like to have a jar replacement in Kaffe.
Licensing issues, no matter how exciting they may be, will not prevent
us from including your work.
More information about the kaffe