LGPL vs. GPL + Classpath Exception

[Mark Wielaard]

On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 04:03 -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > This was silly and duplication of work. So (back in 2000)
> > the projects decided to merge. GNU Classpath used to be under the LGPL,
> > but the libgcj people preferred a license more like other GCC runtime
> > licenses (like libstdc++) which were all GPL + exception based (for the
> > reasons stated above). So the merged project adopted that approach to be
> > consistent with other GCC runtime libraries for other programming
> > languages.
> 
> That makes sense, but OTOH glibc is under the LGPL
> (http://directory.fsf.org/glibc.html), and part of the GCC runtime.  In
> fact, it's the canonical LGPL library.

Sure. I wouldn't read too much into the whole thing. It is more an
historic curiosity. Clearly the intentions behind LGPL and GPL +
exception are similar (just that some people find the GPL + exception
approach clearer, and there are some small differences like you
mentioned previously that for some embedded uses might be easier to
accommodate). A decade ago the libre java community was much smaller and
divided, we didn't really have a clue about whether or not this whole
java thing would be of any importance for the GNU platform. Only the
last 4 or 5 years has the effort been such a success and grew so big
because all the parties united to make it happen. Only then did it
become clear that we would provide a fully free implementation of Java
that would nicely integrate with the whole GNU/Linux platform. So when
Sun wanted to join the fun last year we obviously advised them to use
the GPL and that we had good results with using the GPL + exception for
the libraries to unite everybody around a common codebase. And imagine
our surprise they just adopted that approach to make sure that the
existing communities immediately felt at home. I think that worked and I
think that is the most significant thing.

Cheers,

Mark