Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:50:17PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > > Debian modifies Kaffe and distributes Eclipse with it. If Debian did > > not modify Kaffe, then this section would not be relevant. > > First: There is no such legal entity as "Debian" which is doing such > things. "Debian" is a trademark of SPI, and there are people who use > that trademark, but that's not the same thing.
You can replace "Debian" with "SPI" if it makes you feel better. I feel that you are quibbling about unimportant matters. > Second, when a volunteer who associates with the name "Debian" modifies > Kaffe, he or she does not modify it to include Eclipse. So the > distribution of Kaffe proceeds unhindered. > > Third, when a volunteer who associates with the name "Debian" distributes > Eclipse, this is under the terms of the Eclipse license, and this does > not in any way violate the Kaffe license. > > Of course, if someone modified Kaffe to incorporte Eclipse, that would be > a problem. To my knowledge, no one has done so, no one plans to do so, > and no one is seriously presenting this as an issue. > > In other words: even if your sentence were legally accurate (which it > isn't, given the legal status of Debian), it would still be irrelevant. The volunteers are agents of Debian. > > > 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. > > The make an aggregate work. However, this aggregate work is not the > work which is made when Kaffe is modified. Debian distributes a modified Kaffe and Eclipse together. Section 2 of the GPL does not care whether the modifications made to Kaffe are for making Eclipse work better or not. > > > 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 0, when taken by itself (as you're doing here), only requires > the inclusion of appropriate copyright notices. So we're satisfying > that aspect of section 0. > > > Section 1 gives permissions for distributing unmodified versions. > > Yes. > > > I am talking about distributing modified versions of Kaffe (which > > Debian does). > > And we're satisfying the conditions required for the distribution > of those modified versions. Those modified versions of Kaffe do not > include Eclipse. > > There is an aggregate work which is also being distributed which includes > both Kaffe and Eclipse, but the GPL allows that. They are not an aggregate work, they are a whole work. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
