Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought that both Classpath and libgjc were distributed under the LGPL
> and that Cygnus normally assigns copyright back to to FSF when working
> on GCC. Why isn't that the case now?
First, libgcj is not gcc. Secondly, Cygnus needs to be able to
release code under a *less* restrictive license to its embedded
customers. That is one reason it keeps the copyright. I (and
others) think the best solution is to have libgcj under a "modified
GPL", like Cygnus does for libstdcc+, the standard C++ library,
as well as libgcc (which is *not* libc)..
> Why haven't Classpath and libgcj merged?
I think Cygnus could be pursuaded to release libgcj under the same
license as libstdc++, and maybe be donate the copyright to the FSF.
However, convincing Cygnus management would be much easier if
Cygnus got something in exchange, like some major contributions.
Specifically, if FSF were willing to release Classpath under the
same license as libfcc/libstdc++, then I think merging libgcj
and Classpath is possible, and would be a win-win.
> P.S. I saw a posting of you on Slashdot in which you said that there was only
> one (O'Reilly?) book on Swing (spec) details. Which book is that?
The O'Reilly book is called "Java Swing". It actually has a 1998
copyright and predates the final Swing release, so it still uses the
com.sun.java.swing package. But it's the only one that I've been able to find
goes into any depth about the text stuff.
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bothner.com/~per/
