Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic, > > > Eclipse is not a part of Kaffe. > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:56:34PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > > You missed the part about Eclipse requiring Kaffe to run. > > The license on Eclipse doesn't make an issue of this. > > The license on Kaffe explicitly says that running Kaffe is not restricted. > > So you have no plausible reason for believing that this matters.
Ok. One more time. The license on Kaffe says that distributing Kaffe with other things can be restricted. > > > > If you have a better heuristic, I am open to discussion. > > > > > > "Requires to build". > > > > I have serious doubts that only the header files would become part of > > the complete work. > > Irrelevant, until you show some reason for this to matter in > the specific case of Eclipse and Kaffe. > > > > "Incorporates content from". > > > > That would be an ordinary derived work. As I mentioned, the GPL goes > > beyond derived works. > > Irrelevant, until you show some reason for this to matter in > the specific case of Eclipse and Kaffe. You gave alternate heuristics. I gave reasons why they won't work. Please pay attention. > > > "Designed as part of". > > > > So if a GPL'd program can use GNU TLS or OpenSSL, we don't have to > > actually ship GNU TLS? Are you actually proposing that? > > I'm not discussing GNU TLS at the moment. I've not studied that issue. > > But I should note that I'm not claiming that any of these criteria should > stand by themselves. Perhaps you should take some time and consider these things a little more. Otherwise, you are just wasting everyone's time. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]