LGPL vs. GPL + Classpath Exception

[Roger Fujii]

Bruce Alspaugh wrote:
> Can someone summarize the main differences between the LGPL, and the GPL 
> with a classpath exception?
> Sun has released Java using the GPL + Classpath exception.  Was there 
> some reason why they would choose it over LGPL?
> 

I think they chose it because it is simpler to understand.  However, having
said that, there are conceptual differences pending on how one defines
"derived".   Under the normal understanding of an lgpl library, mere use
does not trigger anything.  So, if A is your program and B is an LGPLed
module, distributing A or (A + B) is ok (so long as you honor LGPL for B).
More on this is here:
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html

IMHO, the classpath license is internally inconsistant as it seems to imply
that unmodified use "does not affect the licensing for distributing those
programs directly", but the license itself does not say this anywhere.  This
is the basis on how copyleft works.  If A calls B, it's hard to say that A
is independent of B.  I think the only use of the exception clause is if you
are a JVM distributor.   Anyone else who uses it should just treat it like
the GPL.

-r