Godmar Back wrote:
> >
> > I was also under the impression that Kaffe was indeed not GPL'ed for all
> > platforms. I thought kaffe was going to take the route that cygnus took in
> > supporting embedded systems -- release the code to just the person that paid
> > you $$$ to port it to their platform (but then again, maybe I was misinformed
> > about cygnus too :)
> >
>
> I don't think the GPL allows you to do that. If you've released something
> under the GPL, then you've released it: and people can compile it on
> whatever platform they want. This is the case for Kaffe.
the gpl specifically allows for just this. all you are required to do is give the
source to whoever you give the binary to. Considering that the customers pay a
lot of money for the binary/source, it makes no financial sense to turn around and
just give it away to the world.
> The fact that TVT sells and support a version of Kaffe that is comprised
> of their own contributions to Kaffe and other code that specifically supports
> their Kaffe on platforms not yet supported by the open source Kaffe
> has no impact on the status on the open source Kaffe.
Right. All I'm saying is that it's unfortunate (and kinda silly) to have two
separate versions. Makes you money, but hardly seems very "Free" (in the
GPL sense) to me. Makes you question the reasoning behind using the GPL. I mean,
are they really "with" the FSF? I don't think so.
But all this is really irrelevant. This list was not chartered to discuss
transvirtual's business plan nor their licensing plans :)
xtoph
