>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wes> My sense from the Classpath team was that they didn't want bridge code Wes> that relied on code (gnu.regexp) that has not been copyright-assigned Wes> to the FSF. I'm willing to do this assignment, but I can't contribute Wes> the gnu.regexp classes themselves without doing some due diligence and Wes> contacting past contributors and getting them to waive their Wes> individual copyrights. I'll take a stab at doing this. For things like crypto, javax.naming, and AWT, where there is a clean separation of the Java interface and the underlying provider, I think we can be fairly lenient about licensing and copyright ownership. In some of these situations it is clearly beneficial to have multiple providers, in others it is clear that the licensing of the bridge code should reflect the underlying library (e.g., the Gtk AWT peers should be LGPL given that Gtk itself is). For something like java.util.regex I think it would be preferable to have a single implementation in Classpath itself. So, yeah, in this case I think assignment would be ideal. Tom _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
