Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is > > > > > not subject to the GPL. > > > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > > > > The key word is "by itself". There is no problem with Eclipse being > > > > distributed alone. The problem is when it is distributed with Kaffe. > > > > Kaffe's license cares about the company it keeps. > > > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I see no such problem. > > > > > > Since you claim to, please cite the specific, relevant language from > > > the GPL that "cares about the company it keeps". And, indicate why > > > those parts of the GPL are significant to the combination of Eclipse > > > + Kaffe. [To me, "the company it keeps" sounds like the same topic as > > > "mere aggregation".] > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:54:50PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > > I have already noted that the paragraph after Section 2c is where this > > occurs. It is even clarified in the next paragraph > > > > the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of > > derivative or collective works based on the Program. > > > > Note the use of the word "collective". > > Sure -- this phrase is necessary because in some cases building a program > creates a derivative work under copyright law and in other cases building > a program creates a collective work. > > But you can't take that phrase in isolation -- you have to look at when > Section 2 is significant. > > Section 2 is about the restrictions which come into play when you > build a modified form of Kaffe, which is not the case for Eclipse. > Eclipse involves no modifications of Kaffe.
Debian modifies Kaffe and distributes Eclipse with it. If Debian did not modify Kaffe, then this section would not be relevant. > Once again, the only relations between Eclipse and Kaffe are "Eclipse > is aggregated with Kaffe" and "Eclipse is run by Kaffe". And once again, you miss the point that Eclipse and Kaffe together make a whole work. > In particular, you can't impost restrictions from Section 2 on cases > where Sections 0 and 1 have already granted permissions. Not unless you > want to make distribution under the GPL void (see Section 4 for why that > is a requirement). Section 0 says that this license only affects copying and distribution, which is what is going on here. Section 1 gives permissions for distributing unmodified versions. I am talking about distributing modified versions of Kaffe (which Debian does). Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
