Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > When Debian puts Eclipse into main, Debian is distributing Eclipse to
> > be used with Kaffe. When it is in contrib, Debian is distributing
> > Eclipse to be used by something outside of main.
>
> To the extent the first part
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > You have made a very convincing argument that "required to install" is
> > too broad. My criteria is "required to run".
>
> I've showed that your interpretation of 'required to
Walter Landry wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You have made a very convincing argument that "required to install" is
too broad. My criteria is "required to run".
I've showed that your interpretation of 'required to run' is too broad,
as you attempt to stretch it in the same direc
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:18:56PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> You have made a very convincing argument that "required to install" is
> too broad. My criteria is "required to run".
If you're talking about the scope of copyright law, or the relevance of
the license granted by the GPL, you're tal
Walter Landry wrote:
You are correct. It is no longer the case when the work is
unmodified. However, Debian does modify Kaffe. Even if all of those
modifications were incorporated upstream, Debian still must be able to
make security fixes. A security fix would kick Eclipse out of main,
which re
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:55:10PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > 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.
Walter Landry writes:
> When Debian puts Eclipse into main, Debian is distributing Eclipse to
> be used with Kaffe. When it is in contrib, Debian is distributing
> Eclipse to be used by something outside of main.
To the extent the first part is true, the second part is false. Also
to the extent
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > The GPL mentions whole works, and I have given my criteria of a whole
> > work: Requires to run. The Debian Depends: relationship is also
> > useful and mostly equivalent. I have not seen any other criteria
> > which matches w
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
>
> >>If the
> >> GPLed work is separate from other works under copyright law, it
> >>doesn't contaminate them at this point.
> >
> >
> > This is wishful thinking. The paragraphs after GPL 2c clearly cover
> > collective works.
Walter Landry wrote:
The GPL mentions whole works, and I have given my criteria of a whole
work: Requires to run. The Debian Depends: relationship is also
useful and mostly equivalent. I have not seen any other criteria
which matches what the GPL actually says. As I mentioned before, I am
open t
> >>If the
> >> GPLed work is separate from other works under copyright law, it
> >>doesn't contaminate them at this point.
Walter Landry wrote:
> > This is wishful thinking. The paragraphs after GPL 2c clearly cover
> > collective works.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:02:19AM +, Lewis Jardin
Walter Landry wrote:
If the
GPLed work is separate from other works under copyright law, it
doesn't contaminate them at this point.
This is wishful thinking. The paragraphs after GPL 2c clearly cover
collective works.
Are you sure this is the case when the work is unmodified?
As I understand i
> > 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.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:55:10PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Ok. One more tim
> > You and Brian keep on claiming that. Do you actually have anything
> > solid on which to base this assertion?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:56:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The GPL mentions whole works, and I have given my criteria of a whole
> work: Requires to run.
Both of these statement
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> 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
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> >Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 who
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 Ecli
Walter Landry wrote:
>Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
You and Brian keep on claiming that. Do you ac
Walter Landry wrote:
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
> > 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 Ka
> > 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.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:55:30PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> You can replace "Debian" with "SPI"
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > The GPL puts restrictions on whole works.
>
> True.
>
> > "Requires to run" is a useful heuristic to determine what a whole
> > work is.
>
> Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by t
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 wrot
> > In other words: derivative works include "mere aggregation".
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:57:29PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> As a point of law, derivative works are not a superset of "mere
> aggregation" in the US, and I suspect not in other jursidictions. 17
> USC 101 requires that a deriva
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > But I have only seen people talk about derivative works, and the GPL
> > clearly goes beyond just derived works.
>
> [1] I don't think this phrase "derivative works" means what you think
> it means.
>
> [
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The GPL puts restrictions on whole works.
True.
> "Requires to run" is a useful heuristic to determine what a whole
> work is.
Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic,
Eclipse is not a part of Kaffe.
> If you
> > 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 Eclips
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård w
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:49:42PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > When one work requires the other in order to function, then you have
> > gotten past mere aggregation. So Emacs is not required for Kaffe to
> > work, or vice versa. Putting them on the sam
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 i
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> >> Interpreters are a different issue fr
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:49:42PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> When one work requires the other in order to function, then you have
> gotten past mere aggregation. So Emacs is not required for Kaffe to
> work, or vice versa. Putting them on the same medium is mere
> aggregation.
"Requires to r
Walter Landry writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Under copyright law, collective works include those that the GPL
> > refers to as "mere aggregation." How do you propose we distinguish
> > between what the GPL considers mere aggregation and others?
>
> When one work requ
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > 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,
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
>> >> program being inter
> > > 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
> >
Michael Poole wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>>What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
>>entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
>>appropriate input and parse openssl's output. Would that constitute
>>linking? It ends up using all of the same code
Walter Landry writes:
> 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
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
> >> program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the
> >
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:55:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > See above. This is really getting quite silly. We have strong reason to
> > > believe that the Kaffe folks *do not* interpret the GPL as co
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
> 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. T
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > Debian adds in all of the debian-specific control files, including man
> > pages. Even if you discount that, Debian reserves the right to modify
> > Kaffe at will.
>
> Debian-created man pages, or any other modifications of K
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 04:15:58PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> The interpreted program interacts (I don't think "communicate" is the
> appropriate word) with the virtual machine (in a loose sense of the
> word) presented by the interpreter. It does not communicate with the
> actual implementatio
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
>> program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the
>> interpreter at all.
>
> If the interpreted program
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
> program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the
> interpreter at all.
If the interpreted program and the interpreter can't communicate, then
usual
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
>> > entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
>> > appropriate input and pa
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:55:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > See above. This is really getting quite silly. We have strong reason to
> > believe that the Kaffe folks *do not* interpret the GPL as contaminating
> > things which are run within Kaffe
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
> > entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
> > appropriate input and parse openssl's output. Would that constitute
> >
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:07:16AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This does depend on the accuracy of the Depends line. If something
> > > uses native (JNI) library calls that are not standardized across
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:07:16AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:41:41PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > The user has T installed, and types "apt-get install
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:38:40AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The exec() boundary is bogus. The interpreter waffle is bogus. The
> LGPL exemption is bogus. The syscall exemption is bogus. The
> Classpath exception is bogus. The entire claim that linking creates a
> derivative work is b
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:10:59 -0500 (EST), Walter Landry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
> entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
> appropriate input and parse openssl's output. Would that constitute
> linking?
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:52:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
>> > > and
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:32:13 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:01:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > The end being achieved is a major factor in finding a "functional
> > interface" for legal purposes.
>
> We're in violent agreement, here.
I agree,
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>>>But why do you think RMS is so keen to have a working, FSF-owned Hurd?
>>
>>NIH syndrome. What is your explanation?
>
> I'm sure he'd like to make a system with guaranteed only free
> programs
Walter Landry writes:
> What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
> entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
> appropriate input and parse openssl's output. Would that constitute
> linking? It ends up using all of the same code as the directly linked
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:30:30PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > If so, what is the difference is between Y=Kaffe and Y=Linux? Linux
> > exempts syscall-using clients from being directly covered by the GPL,
>
> That is the difference. Linux has an exemption and Kaffe does not.
... as far as I
Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:52:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
> > > and does not contain any copyright-protected portion
Walter Landry writes:
> Debian adds in all of the debian-specific control files, including man
> pages. Even if you discount that, Debian reserves the right to modify
> Kaffe at will.
Debian-created man pages, or any other modifications of Kaffe, could
somehow make Eclipse a derivative work of K
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
>
> > > Walter Landry writes:
> > > > GPL 2 uses a different term: "work as a whole". The different
> > > > sections do not have to be related by copyright at all.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:48:26PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> To summarize you argument: Debian includes both GPL-incompatible work
> X and GPLed work Y. Work X can be run on top of other programs than
> work Y, but Debian does not distribute those alternatives.
That last clause ", but Debian
Raul Miller writes:
> > Walter Landry writes:
> > > GPL 2 uses a different term: "work as a whole". The different
> > > sections do not have to be related by copyright at all.
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:48:26PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > If the two works are not related by copyright, th
> Walter Landry writes:
> > GPL 2 uses a different term: "work as a whole". The different
> > sections do not have to be related by copyright at all.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:48:26PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> If the two works are not related by copyright, then they are merely
> aggregated.
Walter Landry writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> > > Since there is a stronger relationship there than the weakest relation
> > > that could be called aggregation, it isn't mere aggregation. It's
> > > aggregation and something else. Thus,
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
> > Since there is a stronger relationship there than the weakest relation
> > that could be called aggregation, it isn't mere aggregation. It's
> > aggregation and something else. Thus, GPL 2b applies.
>
> The ending of
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:01:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The end being achieved is a major factor in finding a "functional
> interface" for legal purposes.
We're in violent agreement, here.
> The GPL is indeed an offer of contract, but it ties standards of breach
> so closely to copy
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:01:53 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right that one technology being used instead of another won't
> make a difference if the same end is achieved. But, in the same way,
> "reach across a published functional interface" is a technical detail
> whose s
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:52:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> It seems to me that "mere aggregation" must be the smallest idea that
> is still aggregation.
What is "the smallest idea"? Do you mean "the least restrictive idea"?
For example: both pieces of software happen to exist at some
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
>> and does not contain any copyright-protected portion of Kaffe. It is
>> possible to claim that "Eclipse+Kaffe" is a work base
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Since there is a stronger relationship there than the weakest relation
> that could be called aggregation, it isn't mere aggregation. It's
> aggregation and something else. Thus, GPL 2b applies.
The ending of GPL 2 is clear to me: If the two works are not related
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:52:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
> > and does not contain any copyright-protected portion of Kaffe. It is
> > possible to claim that "Eclip
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
> and does not contain any copyright-protected portion of Kaffe. It is
> possible to claim that "Eclipse+Kaffe" is a work based on Kaffe, but
> by the same argument, "Debian" is a wo
Brian repeatedly asserts that the relationship between Eclipse and Kaffe
is not "mere aggregation", but declines to say what that relationship is.
To my knowledge, the only relation between Eclipse and Kaffe other than
"mere aggregation" is that Kaffe runs Eclipse. But the GPL also states
that th
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:43:08PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> >> But none in Debian main. People seem to be missing the point, so I
> >> will repeat: I am not saying that Eclipse is not distributable, just
> >> that
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:43:08PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
>> But none in Debian main. People seem to be missing the point, so I
>> will repeat: I am not saying that Eclipse is not distributable, just
>> that it can't go into main.
>
> That's easy to
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:41:41PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The user has T installed, and types "apt-get install noteclipse". Since
>>
>> Does this also answer the case of Debian CDs?
>
> It an
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 03:15:23AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> I think most of those are just aggregation on a medium of
>> distribution. Only the tree of dependencies has to be checked.
>
> So what you're saying is that "Depends: java2-runt
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:43:08PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> But none in Debian main. People seem to be missing the point, so I
> will repeat: I am not saying that Eclipse is not distributable, just
> that it can't go into main.
That's easy to say. It's much harder to back up.
The distincti
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [3] Debian dependencies. [The GPL doesn't seem to have any requirements
> > > in this area.]
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:06:31PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Actually, it does. The GPL says (with some parts elided)
> >
> > If sections are sep
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
> > once.
>
> Irrelevant:
You seem to be missing the point. Someone pointed out that my
interpretation would require all p
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
> > once.
>
> OK, apache2 depends on Bash to function (/etc/init.d/apache2).
Bash is copyrighted by the FSF, who has already given permission
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:26:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> (I, for one, have never bought the "magical exec() boundary" FSF argument;
> an API is a natural barrier which can be fairly straightforwardly tested
> and is covered by fairly well understood precedents already. *Especially*
> if that
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 03:15:23AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> I think most of those are just aggregation on a medium of
> distribution. Only the tree of dependencies has to be checked.
So what you're saying is that "Depends: java2-runtime" is fine, but
"Depends: kaffe | java2-runtime
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:41:41PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The user has T installed, and types "apt-get install noteclipse". Since
>
> Does this also answer the case of Debian CDs?
It answers it in precisely the same fashion that it answ
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:16:37PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Summary: Canadian law has a few interesting differences from US law,
> but I reach the same main conclusions -- the GPL is a valid offer of
> contract; technical distinctions like "linking" vs. "interpretation"
> are irrelevant
Summary: Canadian law has a few interesting differences from US law,
but I reach the same main conclusions -- the GPL is a valid offer of
contract; technical distinctions like "linking" vs. "interpretation"
are irrelevant to its legal force; and a judge is unlikely to permit
the GPL to reach acros
Dalibor Topic wrote:
I'll use a verbatim copy of my post to take apart your and Gadek's
claim. Please do not take the heat of the debate as a personal affront.
It's not meant to hurt. I very much appreciate your civility in your
e-mail messages, which are a refreshing change from the pissing mat
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 08:07:56AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> That is clear about *a* copyright holder. It is not necessarily true
> about all of them. There have been times where Linus's interpretation
> was not shared by all: Linus has said he has no objection to
> distributing binary firmwa
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
> once.
Irrelevant:
The kernel supplies kernel-specific #include files which are incorporated
into C program.
Kaffe doesn't supply any such thing -- no one has ident
> > [3] Debian dependencies. [The GPL doesn't seem to have any requirements
> > in this area.]
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:06:31PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Actually, it does. The GPL says (with some parts elided)
>
> If sections are separate works, then this License does not apply to
>
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
[OK. One "past-last" message, as Dalibor does deserve an answer to his
nice message.]
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Can you interpret shell scripts without GNU Bash? Can you interpret
makefiles without GNU Make?
As far as I can tell, from reading the law and the GPL, the bash scr
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is clear about *a* copyright holder. It is not necessarily true
> about all of them. There have been times where Linus's interpretation
> was not shared by all: Linus has said he has no objection to
> distributing binary firmware blobs in aggregati
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My recollection is that there is no specific exemption - rather, Linus
> > has said that he believes the syscall layer to be the boundary of
> > derived works.
>
> The COPYING starts with this:
>
> 'NOTE! This copyright does
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My recollection is that there is no specific exemption - rather, Linus
> has said that he believes the syscall layer to be the boundary of
> derived works.
The COPYING starts with this:
'NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use ker
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
>> The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
>> once.
>
> Well, Linus claims the kernel has an exemption, though I've never
> heard an explanation of how Linus has any
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
> once.
OK, apache2 depends on Bash to function (/etc/init.d/apache2). This
must mean that Debian cannot distribute Apache 2 and Bash together (at
least we would have to remove Bash from E
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
My point was precisely that the document you referred to, cannot be used
as a basis to represent all of Kaffe's copyright holders opinion.
The document that represents all of Kaffe's copyright holders opinion is
the GPL.
In a related matter, and given you insistence as "rep
[OK. One "past-last" message, as Dalibor does deserve an answer to his
nice message.]
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Can you interpret shell scripts without GNU Bash? Can you interpret
makefiles without GNU Make?
As far as I can tell, from reading the law and the GPL, the bash script
is simply data to
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
> once.
Well, Linus claims the kernel has an exemption, though I've never
heard an explanation of how Linus has any authority to do so ...
(For example, Linux contain
1 - 100 of 381 matches
Mail list logo
