[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: On the use of pre-compiled classes in packages

On Tuesday 7 December 1999, at 2 h 44, the keyboard of Julio Maia 
<julio@pobox.com> wrote:

> Would RMS love the fact that some packages require the non-free JDK to 
> compile, while being distributed under the GPL?

Muffin is in that case. Yes, it is probably on the edge of GPL-compliance. I 
plan to fix it by seriously trying to compile Muffin with something else. (But 
it uses AWT, that's the problem.)

> What makes a Java package DFSG-compliant after all? 

I would say: the same things that make a Perl/Python/C++/Ruby package 
compliant. You have the sources and have the *legal* right to modify and 
redistribute them.

To me, it implies that you have not only a theoretical right but also a 
practical one.

> If a package is distributed under a DFSG license, a dependency with the [Sun's] 
> JDK (or other non-free libraries/compilers/tools) make it non-free? 

No, it moves it to "contrib" (that's where I've put Muffin). Check the Debian 
Policy and the Java policy (which just reminds of the general policy).
> BTW, is there any reason why the core
> classes of Classpath are not packaged for Debian beyond the fact none has 
> intersts in doing so? 

It's a sufficient reason.

> It seems that Classpath is the unique DFSG alternative to the
> JDK 1.2 specific core classes.

Kaffe has its own classes. jikes can use them, for instance.

Reply to: