Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry writes: > > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > In that case, it sounds like Kaffe is objecting to being linked to > > Eclipse, much like GNU readline objects to being linked to > > GPL-incompatible code. I don't see the problem with DFSG #9. > > The only time there is such linkage is at the option of the user, who > uses Kaffe from Debian rather than a Java runtime from some other > source. The user does not (in the usual case) distribute the > resulting combination.
I meant linking as a shorthand for "incorporated as a section of a whole work". Although Kaffe is actually objecting to being distributed while "linked" to Eclipse. > > > > 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)? > > > > bsd readline (whoops) > > > > > 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. > > > > In this case, bsd readline will also work, so Foo is not derived from > > GNU readline. bsd readline won't actually be distributed with Foo, > > but it would work if it did. Would you say that distributing Foo with > > GNU readline and without bsd readline is ok? I would not. > > If either is usable, I would say that distributing both Foo and GNU > readline as part of Debian was okay. The Foo package would say > something like Requires: readline | bsd-readline; the Eclipse > package Requires: kaffe | java2-runtime. Why is either a violation? I am talking about a CD that does not have bsd readline. To clarify, imagine the CD were made without access to bsd readline at all. Would that be allowed? > We covered all this earlier, and there was no good explanation of why > Eclipse + Kaffe is bad but other GPL-incompatible packages + GPLed > Essential: yes packages are okay. For example: does any non-GPL > package that calls out (using only cross-platform options) to one of > the binaries in coreutils, diff, find, grep, gzip, etc violate the > GPL? Many of the utilities are covered by the exemption given by the FSF in the gpl-interpreter FAQ. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
