Walter Landry writes: > > > > 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. > > > > The gpl-interpreter FAQ addresses the interpreted scripts, not > > programs that use the utilities to operate. > > The FAQ addresses a GPL'd language and non-GPL'd scripts, which is > exactly what we have here.
The FAQ also addresses the execution relationship, and does not mention distribution together or separately. I cannot see how your interpretation of "whole work [based on the Program]" can be applied to Eclipse but not to other non-GPL packages which use GPLed utilities that are Essential on a Debian system. If the argument is that there is a non-"mere aggregation" relationship determined by the Depends relationship, the entire Debian system has the same relationship to Essential packages. If the argument is that there is a non-"mere aggregation" relationship due to Eclipse needing a Java interpreter or compiler, the gpl-interpreter FAQ answers it. (Incidentally, is not gjc in main? It seems a likely candidate to substitute for Kaffe if you wish for another GPL-free way to execute Eclipse.) Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
