| From: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
| Date: | 2006-07-13 04:58:09 |
| Message-ID: | 44B5D2E1.9020008@tada.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
> 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2006-07-13 05:07:49 | Re: Online index builds |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-07-13 04:57:57 | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |