LGPL vs. GPL + Classpath Exception

[Roger Fujii]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Roger Fujii wrote:
> 
>>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. 
> 
> Yes it does.  That's the significance of "As a special exception, the
> copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this
> library with independent modules to produce an executable, /regardless
> of the license terms of these independent modules/"
> 

And what definition of "independent" are you using?   The license *DEFINES*
"independent" as "a module which is _not derived_ from or based on this library."
Given that the FSF says:
     http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang ,

I cannot see how you can write a java class that is not covered by the GPL with
a GPLed java.lang.object as *ALL* java classes are subclassed from java.lang.object.
As I said before, this makes it impossible to make an independent module (unless
you compile it with a non-GPLed java.lang.object elsewhere).  If you look at the
libstdc++ exception, it is very explict that it's mere inclusion/use does not
necessarily cause coverage by the GPL.  Subclassing is the reason.

-r