Walter Landry writes: > Debian adds in all of the debian-specific control files, including man > pages. Even if you discount that, Debian reserves the right to modify > Kaffe at will.
Debian-created man pages, or any other modifications of Kaffe, could somehow make Eclipse a derivative work of Kaffe? How? > > > Maybe it would help to think of this as question of what's "inside" > > > and what's "outside" the modified program. > > > > > > Things that are inside (libraries, modules, headers, etc.) need to be > > > GPL compatible. This is where the OS exception comes in. > > > > This a debian-legal FAQ. Debian is the OS, and cannot avail itself of > > the OS exception. > > > > > Things that are outside (independently created programs and data -- > > > things that aren't needed to make the modified GPLed work be complete) > > > do not need to be GPL compatible. This is where the clauses about > > > running the program and about mere aggregation come in. > > > > To summarize you argument: Debian includes both GPL-incompatible work > > X and GPLed work Y. Work X can be run on top of other programs than > > work Y, but Debian does not distribute those alternatives. Work X > > itself (in either source or binary form) is not a derivative of work > > Y, but within Debian, work X can only be run on top of work Y, and we > > ship both of them. Because of that, this is beyond mere aggregation, > > and work Y must be made GPL-compatible or moved to contrib. Correct? > > Correct. > > > If so, what is the difference is between Y=Kaffe and Y=Linux? Linux > > exempts syscall-using clients from being directly covered by the GPL, > > That is the difference. Linux has an exemption and Kaffe does not. > > > but Kaffe has no direct copyright claim on pure java applications. > > It is again a question of how to define "mere aggregation" in the > > collective work known as Debian. The Linux syscall exemption is a red herring. It releases applications -- not collective works containing both. Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is not subject to the GPL. But in both cases, there is a collective work that is (according to your argument) based on the GPLed work, and that work is not licensed according to the GPL. If the collective work "Eclipse+Kaffe" is subject to the GPL, the collective work "Debian+Linux" must also be. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]