On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:40:59AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
The opinion of debian-legal would be highly appreciated by all involved in
this
long running thread of discussion about the implications of:
1- Kaffe being licensed under the GNU GPL.
2- Kaffe's class library being licensed
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Kaffe is essentially a filter that takes java
bytecode as input and emits program code on the fly (this is
technically incomplete, but effectively equivalent for the sake of
this argument). The input to a filter cannot be a derivative work of
it; we don't *care* about the
[This is no longer particularly important]
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:37:49AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Kaffe is essentially a filter that takes java
bytecode as input and emits program code on the fly (this is
technically incomplete, but effectively equivalent for
Hi Etienne,
let's have some non-lawyerish philosophical licensing discussion fun
again ;)
My first issue is with the subject line: Kaffe uses plain GPL, not some
special 'Kaffe's GPL'. It should be FSF's GPL, if you'd want to
attribute it someone special.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 07:51:37PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
My first issue is with the subject line: Kaffe uses plain GPL, not some
special 'Kaffe's GPL'. It should be FSF's GPL, if you'd want to
attribute it someone special.
I read Kaffe's (GPL and GPL incompatible Java software), not
5 matches
Mail list logo
