Walter Landry wrote:
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?
Because Eclipse is not a derived work of Kaffe.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
