Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen:
Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
which are distributed with / part of Kaffe. There clearly are
bindings provided there. The GNU Classpath package is GPL'd,
right?
GNU classpath is GPL+linking
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
Grzegorz B. Prokopski, on 2005-01-13, 13:43, you wrote:
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide bindings to
other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the
interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses
through these bindings. So if these
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not
Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed
to work around the GPL or whether they are some kind of
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Yet, if you *package* this program together with a JVM, so that when
the user says I want to build this package or I want to run this
package the user gets your program with a specific JVM, then it's not
a mere aggregation, but these two are explicitely bound together.
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
If you at least went on and read next paragraph of the FAQ from which
you took the above.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide bindings to
other facilities (often, but not necessarily,
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you support this assertion? The program, including its libraries,
which the developer
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you support this assertion? The program,
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings, or whether it asks the user to tilt switches on
an array of light bulbs is irrelevant to the
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:39:09PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types apt-get
install eclipse; eclipse is a program incorporating a JVM and many
libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
distributing Kaffe -- the idea
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings, or whether it asks the user to tilt switches on
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings, or
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I am. I'm not talking about the .deb file containing Eclipse. If you
think you can provide someone with the Eclipse IDE program without
providing a JVM, I invite you to try.
You mean like Fedora? Eclipse 3 nicely compiled to native with gcj, yum,
and balzing fast,
On Fri, 2005-14-01 at 20:56 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I am. I'm not talking about the .deb file containing Eclipse. If you
think you can provide someone with the Eclipse IDE program without
providing a JVM, I invite you to try.
You mean like Fedora?
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Your email messages do not contain calls to GPLed functions, do they?
Depends on the message :)
But that's not the point. The point is that the mere existance of a
chunk of non GPL-compatible memory within a GPLd proces' memory does not
necessarily constitute a GPL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there actually is something going wrong, I'd really like for someone
to spell out what it is in some fashion which addresses the above points.
Everything you said there seems reasonable to me (at first glance).
It's fine for the Kaffe developers and
inline
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:16:41 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there actually is something going wrong, I'd really like for someone
to spell out what it is in some fashion which addresses the above points.
Everything you said there seems
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
package and from dozens of others are loaded into memory. The process
on my computer is mechanical, so we should
Oh yeah, the answer:
We just do. Because the grep developers don't mind, apparently. They
aren't going to sue us... they'd probably tell us to stop before they sued
us anyways. We are at no risk from this.
Kaffe developers: do you mind?
Kaffe Developers Of course not, read the classpath
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
package and from dozens of others are loaded into memory. The
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Now, before you go off ranting about Kaffe's native libraries, please
take a moment to let the fact sink in that while these native libraries
are the result of Kaffe developers being a somewhat clever bunch at
developing
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But you can see that it's not mere aggregation, because they invoke
each other when run.
Evidence is not proof.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'm not talking about running; I'm talking about making a copy of
Eclipse and a copy of Kaffe and putting them both on an end-user's
system such that when I type eclipse I get a program made out of
both.
You don't get a program made out of both any more than you get a
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
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'm not talking about running; I'm talking about making a copy of
Eclipse and a copy of Kaffe and putting them both on an end-user's
system such that when I type eclipse I get a program made out of
both.
You don't get a
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
package and from dozens of
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
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
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[large discussion of C snipped out]
In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
contain references to other classes which the JVM is free to look for
anywhere it pleases. AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it causes even one person to understand that the generation or
transportation of a copy is what matters, and not technical
workarounds, I'll consider it useful.
If it causes even one person to examine the legal precedents and form
his or her
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[large discussion of C snipped out]
In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
contain references to other classes which the JVM is free to
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:11:22PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
when you build it.
How many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does not
form a derivative work of *any* implementation of the API?
More
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:11:22PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:19 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
when you build it.
How many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does not
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:15 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fail to see the relevance of this paragraph to the discussion at
hand. The
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
No, it is being interpreted by an interpreter that is covered by the
GPL. Even the FSF admits that this does not
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:28 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
No, it is being interpreted by an interpreter that is covered by
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide bindings to
other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the
...
Do you understand that an
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 21:56 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
No,
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 22:02 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 21:56 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, in our case, Eclipse is
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Putting it differently: if that was allowed, then why do we need glibc
to be LGPLed, and not GPLed? After all the C language and its basic
libraries are also standarized to great extent.
I can see no real reason.
But having glibc purely GPL
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 22:51 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Do you understand that a program being interpreted is effectively
linked to these facilities it uses thru these bindings?
Yes. Which bindings does Eclipse use?
I told you. Plenty. And if we're making Eclipse Build-depend on
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
The *new* Eclipse packages that are being prepared now and which we've
been discussing (I already said it in
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 18:13 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
The *new* Eclipse packages that are being
Grzegorz B. Prokopski gadek at debian.org writes:
Neither they agreed with yours, as you probably remember, but that's not
the point. The point is, that, as you've mentioned yourself, there ARE
non-GPLed JVMs (IKVM, gij, SableVM) that could be used to build Eclipse
w/o breaching GPL.
The
[Note: I don't know enough about Eclipse and Kaffe to make any comments
on that specific issue. Instead, I'm responding to some of the things
Michael has written.]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
You know, just because the FSF has claimed for many years that
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]
But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret the relationship between
Java bytecode and GPL code to be loose enough not to
Am Mittwoch, 12. Januar 2005 22:11 schrieb Dalibor Topic:
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]
But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret the
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
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;
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
which is termed contributory infringement which makes it true.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:58PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
What laws
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
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 with the work it critiques.
Sure, and evidence isn't proof.
If it can be
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
On Wed, 2005-12-01 at 02:49 +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski gadek at debian.org writes:
See http://sablevm.org/wiki/License_FAQ for details.
Gadek, last time you've taken your claims to debian-legal, noone on
debian-legal
agreed with your interpretation of the GPL.
[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
66 matches
Mail list logo
