Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-14 Thread Michael K. Edwards
The entirety of GPL section 2 applies only to works based on the Program. In context, this applies only to derivative works and (copyrightable) collections (the GPL says collective works, but this is obviously a thinko) under copyright law. The combination of Kaffe and Eclipse is neither of this

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-13 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't derived from any of them. The complete binary, including its libraries, included whichever one Debian shipped it with. No, it's not a

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-12 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle which is termed contributory infringement which makes it true. What laws and precedents? All the law and precedent that I can find suggests

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-12 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:11:52 +0100, Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael K. Edwards wrote: [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal] [cut noise about FSF] One person's signal is another's noise

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-12 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:36:27 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip things with which I agree completely] Once again: linking is a detail. It's not something which copyright law makes any special allowances for. Depending on the circumstances linking might be analogous to

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-12 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:08:19 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote: Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read side-by-side

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-11 Thread Michael K. Edwards
[Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal] Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: However if nobody stands up and say clearly, that there IS a problem, that GPL and CPL/APL are NOT compatible, and cannot be linked