Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
What happens when the FSF inevitably removes the license clause and
makes it pure GPL?
I'm sorry but I don't follow. You're saying that it's inevitable that
FSF will remove the 'libgcc' exception from libgcj? Why on earth would
they do that? My guess is that it will go the other way (i.e. LGPL).
What's the logic in having different licenses on libg++ and libgcj?
You are trying to apply logic to what is a political organization. Keep
in mind that LGPL stands for LESSOR GPL. RMS would prefer that ALL
licenses be under the GPL (or something very similar) that does not
allow anyone to close source the software.
This isn't really the point of the thread though.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Now all of this being said, I doubt there is actually an issue here
because:
It doesn't HAVE TO BE BUILT, it is not a derivative product.
Well, assume that FSF indeed did remove the exception. It would take me
30 minutes or so to create a substitute BSD licensed dummy JNI library
with associated headers that would allow PL/Java to be built without any
external modules at all. It's then completely up to the user what he/she
wants to slot in as a replacement.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
