Subject: RE: GPL with the Classpath exception - clarification needed
From: "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:41:41 -0700

 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:41:41 -0700
Philippe Verdy [mailto:verdy p@wanadoo.fr] wrote:

> I have always disliked C++.
>
> And even if I use C++ today, I strictly NEVER use the STL, but prefer using
> much more portable frameworks that do not enve use the multiple inheritance,
> and can use C++ templates only in a limited (but largely sufficient) way,
> like it is done in Java, C# or other languages that can support variant
> types, introspection and modeling with interfaces and separation from the
> implementation (with lots of advantages in terms of choices of deployment).

Philippe, just a gentle reminder, this list is license-discuss, not
language-discuss.

> But remember that we were speaking about Java when speaking about the
> Classpath exclusion. Where does the LGPL affect Java-written libraries so
> that it would not work or would render an application using it fully GPL
> licenced with all its requirements?

OK. If you derive a Java class from a base class which is LGPL licensed,
under what rationale do you claim your derived class is not also a
derivative work under copyright, and is not subject to LGPL?

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center