Okay, there is a solution that is rather expedient to fixing the
classpath/classlib licensing problems. The FSF has within it's power
the ability to relicense the software under new terms and conditions or
could in fact dual license the software under both the current license
and a suitable Apache friendly license. All that is required is to win
the argument with Richard Stallman or Bradley Kuhn. And that would have
to start with getting most of the committers on board with the idea and
the project maintainer.
This is how we did the license change from LGPL to GPL+exception. Gcj
(gcc) needed us to switch from LGPL to the exception bits because it is
what they were already using to make certain use cases, such as delivery
of a software controlled toothbrush, work, without requiring the
redistribution of object files suitable for re-linking the application
on your toothbrush.
I don't really see the FSF backing down from the point of view that the
users of free software should have the right to modify and release the
software and Apache is unlikely to change either, as they have benefited
enormously (in terms of brand at least) from letting anyone embed their
software without having to divulge the source code to users.
Given that you can already ship products with closed binary-only java
class libraries from many sources adding one more isn't going to change
that world or hurt a user. But, we can benefit enormously from
combining our energies with Harmony to deliver a free J2SE 5 faster than
anyone thinks is possible.
So, given these things and my love for this project, I would really like
the FSF to allow the developers to provide Classpath under an Apache
compatible license in addition to the current licensing scheme, at least
until the FSF and the Apache Foundation resolve their own license
incompatibilities. We have no guarantees they will ever work things out
and waiting a year to find that out is waiting a year too long.
Thanks for letting me share,
Brian (former maintainer)
