Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry writes: > > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose > > > would mean that the GPL is a non-DFSG-free license. > > > > Where was that? I have seen no such convincing explanation. > > Eclipse compiled against Kaffe and distributed separately would not > violate the GPL: the compiled verison of Eclipse would not be a > derivative of Kaffe. If distributing them together violates the GPL, > then the GPL contaminates Kaffe in violation of DFSG #9.
You are saying that Kaffe contaminated itself? How does that violate DFSG #9? Suppose I have a program Foo which uses either GNU readline. I can compile Foo against GNU readline (but not link it), and distribute the result. I can also distribute GNU readline separately. But I can not distribute foo and GNU readline together. How is this different from your case? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
