Walter Landry writes: > 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?
Pardon, I meant "Eclipse" instead of "Kaffe" in the last line. > 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? Foo uses either GNU readline (or what)? If you link Foo against GNU readline, then the usual debian-legal interpretation is that the binary is a work derived from GNU readline, since other implementations of the readline API are not usable. Pure Java binaries are different: they use only certain APIs, which are available from many implementations. I do not believe there would be any GPL violation if you distribute the GNU readline source with GPL-incompatible source for Foo; from the viewpoint of interoperability, C source distribution is closer to the case of Java binaries. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
