On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:55:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > See above. This is really getting quite silly. We have strong reason to > > believe that the Kaffe folks *do not* interpret the GPL as contaminating > > things which are run within Kaffe (with the possible exception of things > > that use JNI calls to accomplish things which are not possible in other > > JVMs, if any such exist). > > Actually, the problem is that we don't. For some of the authors, we > have that information, but far from all of them.
Yes, actually, we do - but perhaps not in the way you're thinking. *) The FAQ, which one would hope they have all read since it's still up, and they're still authoring for it, basically says this. *) The only participant to date, while only a single author, certainly strongly affirms it. *) Nobody has produced any statement from the contrary from any of them. Given that #3 implies that the worst case we know of is 'neutral', and we have one strong indication that they're OK with it and one flat-out statement that they are by someone involved, I fail to see why we should believe that this is not their intent until someone can document otherwise in some suitable fashion. I agree it would be *nice* of them to make it a moot point by updating their licensing, but given that it can be a hassle, and the only one talking considers it a no-op, I can see why they haven't bothered. I do wish they'd reconsider this position, just to make everyone's life easier in the long run. -- Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`. : :' : `. `' `-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature