On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 13:30 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Tom" == Thomas Fitzsimmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom> Build tools like ant use tools.jar to avoid exec'ing tool binaries. My > Tom> concern is that that would no longer be allowed if the tools become GPL. > Tom> In any case, if the tools remained GPL+exception then I would be sure > Tom> that such a use-case were permissible. > > Yes, I agree -- this is vital.
I'd prefer to see merged in tools under the same license as the rest of the code. Beside explicitely making life OK for build tools using unspecified entry points, it also makes the licensing easier to explain. I would not be looking forward to deal with "GNU Classpath infects ANT! It's illegal to run ANT! You must use Harmony classlib!" sort of nonsense if I can avoid it. cheers, dalibor topic
