Re: On the use of pre-compiled classes in packages
On Tuesday 7 December 1999, at 2 h 44, the keyboard of Julio Maia
> 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
To me, it implies that you have not only a theoretical right but also a
> 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.