[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Anyway, till Freenet remains in java, dropping the Kaffe > compatibility IMHO is a fundamental mistake, both from > the point of view of free software and from the security.
What exactly do you mean by "Kaffe compatibility"? If Matthew & co.
write code which conforms to the specifications of the Java language,
but it crashes Kaffe, then clearly this is a bug in Kaffe. Attempting
to find workarounds which avoid Kaffe bugs might be helpful for you
and me in the short term, but it's a fundamental waste of time for
the project in the long term, if efforts could instead be focused
on improving Freenet itself.
As for the license issue that you mentioned.... The GPL says:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
Can Freenet be copied? Yes.
Can Freenet be distributed? Yes.
Can Freenet be modified? I believe so.
Then, the GPL goes on to cover the detailed conditions which apply
to these three fundamental activities.
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code [...]"
No problem here.
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications [...] provided [...]:
"a) [statement that you changed the files, and when]
"b) [all third parties are licensed to use it at no charge]
"c) [must print disclaimer of warranty if it's interactive]"
Again, no problem here, except possibly 2c, but that only applies
to freenet.client.cli.* which most people don't use anyway. And it's
trivial to fix if anyone actually cares.
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form [...] provided
that you also do one of the following:
"a) [provide source code]
"b) [offer to provide source code at minimal cost]
"c) [pass along someone else's offer to provide source code]
Now here's the important part:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."
Whenever I see a discussion of the GPL, this paragraph is the one that
usually causes the most trouble. In the context of placing Freenet
under the GPL, however, it *does not matter whether Freenet can be
run on a free Java virtual machine*, because the GPL does not concern
itself with the use of the program -- only with copying, distributing
and modifying the program.
The real issue is whether Freenet can be *developed* with free tools.
The answer to this, IMHO, can take a couple different forms:
1) If Sun's Java Software Development Kit is considered "the operating
system on which the executable runs", then the non-free javac
(compiler) can be considered a normally distributed major component
of that operating system. This is an open question.
2) If Freenet can be developed entirely with alternative tools, which
could (at least in theory) be distributed along with Freenet, then
this paragraph is also satisfied. I compile Freenet using jikes
and ant. Jikes is in Debian's main repository, meaning it's
Free Software according to Debian's guidelines. Ant, however, is
in the "contrib" section, which is a trickier matter. Software
in contrib is free, but depends on something which isn't. I don't
feel like tracking down all of ant's dependencies and license
clauses at the moment.
I believe (but I may be mistaken) that Freenet can also be developed
without using ant. Jikes and make might be sufficient. If that's
the case, then everything should be fine -- just include a written
offer to provide jikes (since make is clearly a normal component
of every Unix-like system). I can't foresee anyone actually taking
you up on the offer, when they could download jikes directly from
IBM far more quickly -- but even if they did, sending them a copy
of jikes should't drain the Freenet treasury too greatly. (You
can always request a few more donations.)
FYI, jikes-1.14.tar.gz is 609,341 bytes and is in Freenet at
CHK@2a4yGgZlJv6W7Y1YouvjZr1IT5sUAwI,pbg7cCTk98Zq-1OufU0yew
I don't believe the remaining clauses of the GPL are relevant to
the current discussion, so I'll spare you any further analysis. As
far as I can see at the moment, Freenet does not contradict the GNU
General Public License.
Replies to devl@.
--
Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://wooledge.org/~greg/ |
msg06585/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
