OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing
galabar at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 8 16:55:44 UTC 2009
I think the bottom line is that there is some confusion as to exactly what the OpenJDK license means. This would definitely point to the need for Sun to add some clarifications and examples to the FAQ. The previously suggested FAQ item on JNI would be a good start.
> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:53:45 +0200
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing
> From: volker.simonis at gmail.com
> To: aph at redhat.com
> CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net; dalibor.topic at sun.com
> I thought, GPL'd code can only use GPL'd code. Otherwise I could
> always write a wrapper which is GPL+exception in order to use any kind
> of code together with GPL'd code by means of that wrapper.
> On 7/8/09, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Volker Simonis wrote:
> > > Yes, I understand that conflict. But the HotSpot library libjvm.so
> > > itself is build mostly from files which are pure GPL and some files
> > > (in particular "jni.h") which are GPL + class path exception).
> > >
> > > So how can "jni.cpp" (which is GPL only) include "jni.h" (which is GPL
> > > + class path) and finally be statically linked with other GPL only
> > > files into a GPL-only "libjvm.so"???
> > Why not? GPL'd code can use GPL+exception code. What makes you
> > think otherwise?
> > Andrew.
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
More information about the discuss