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 run' is too broad,
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 is true,
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
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 talking
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 direction,
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
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
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 Jardine 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 what the GPL actually says. As I mentioned before, I am
open
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 actually
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
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 whole work.
You and
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 that Eclipse and Kaffe
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 statements are
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 wrote:
Debian
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 this heuristic,
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 if it makes
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
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.
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 from the exec() situation.
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 same medium
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 wrote:
Interpreters are a
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 Eclipse with
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 have
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.
[2] Whether
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 derivative
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 contaminating
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 key word is by itself.
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 interpreted generally does
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 requires the other
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
usually
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 and the
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 Kaffe, could
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
linking? It
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 (with the
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 does not contain any
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? It
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
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 noteclipse. Since
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 it can't go
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 based on Kaffe,
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 copyright
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 GPL 2 is
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
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
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.
As would
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 answers the
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 to do
this
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 programs
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 separate works,
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 distinction
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-runtime is
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
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 *not* cover
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
[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
those
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
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 firmware
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
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 across a
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 to its
Brian Sniffen write:
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's some strong crack you've been smoking Brian; I'd give it a rest
for a while. Your interpretation of how applications, libraries and
the kernel live together is *special*.
My interpretation is just the plain wording of GPL
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Fortunately, the sentence beginning A program using... is not
relevant to my argument. I'm not talking about derivative works. I'm
talking
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When they are entwined with dependencies, every component of the
collection must be distributed under the GPL.
The GPL doesn't talk about 'entwining with dependencies'. It makes no
such demands.
Can you get an explicit answer
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:53:16AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If you use Eclipse with a JVM, then to the extent that a combined work
is created, it is created by the user or by the JVM.
For the record, I disagree with this line of reasoning. I think
it's misleading, and I see no need for it.
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:57:05 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote:
... In context, this applies only to derivative works and
(copyrightable) collections (the GPL says collective works, but this
is obviously a thinko)
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As it is, I see no difference -- in the context of the GPL or in
the context of Copyright law -- between Eclipse + Kaffe and any
other combination of content with a program designed to process
that kind of content.
I see only functional differences
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
[Side comment: This is one of the beauty of the GPL: for all those, such
as SCO, that claim that the GPL wouldn't hold up in court, it would mean
that actually they (SCO all) have no right to do anything, let alone
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:31:45PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No, it talks about *any* copies at all, and then excepts mere
aggregation. If there's code written by Debian, no matter how brief,
to run them together, then it's not merely aggregation.
You've asserted this many times.
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're right. Sorry. Can you get an explicit answer from them as to
whether you can distribute GPL-incompatible applications with Kaffe?
If you believe you need another answer, you'll have to ask them. You
have mine and the GPL's already.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Regarding the Kaffe FAQ at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011211201322/http://www.kaffe.org/FAQ.html
In this document, it is clearly written:
Is the information given in this FAQ binding?
The information in this FAQ is accurate to the best of our knowledge,
but there is no
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Hi All,
I am not subscribed to this mailing-list, so please CC answers to me (if
any).
In this long message I will outline my interpretation of copyright law
and the GNU GPL. I will actually cite the relevant parts (for computer
Software) of the Canadian Copyright Act,
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:52:18PM +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
No, they're not. It's the license
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
So, according to such reasoning, you own opinion is irrelevant to the
huge parts of
Walter Landry wrote:
If I give you a CD with Eclipse and Kaffe on it, I have given you a
whole work which will edit programs. You may not even know what Kaffe
is, but if you don't have it, Eclipse is not going to run. That sure
sounds like it makes up part of the whole which is an IDE. This
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
So, according to such reasoning, you own opinion is
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry wrote:
If I give you a CD with Eclipse and Kaffe on it, I have given you a
whole work which will edit programs. You may not even know what Kaffe
is, but if you don't have it, Eclipse is not going to run. That sure
sounds like it makes
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The license on Kaffe does not in any way inhibit distribution of
copies of Eclipse. I don't believe for a second that Eclipse is
derivative of any particular JVM. But Eclipse+Kaffe does contain a
copy of Kaffe. The GPL grants permission for distribution of copies
of
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not
Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed
to work around the GPL or whether they are some kind of
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types apt-get
install eclipse; eclipse is a program incorporating a JVM and many
libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
distributing Kaffe -- the idea is that we'll be distributing the
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings, or
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I am. I'm not talking about the .deb file containing Eclipse. If you
think you can provide someone with the Eclipse IDE program without
providing a JVM, I invite you to try.
You mean like Fedora? Eclipse 3 nicely compiled to native with gcj, yum,
and balzing fast,
Brian Sniffen wrote:
Ignore the GPL FAQ for a minute and look at the GPL's 2b:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Now, before you go off ranting about Kaffe's native libraries, please
take a moment to let the fact sink in that while these native libraries
are the result of Kaffe developers being a somewhat clever bunch at
developing
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'm not talking about running; I'm talking about making a copy of
Eclipse and a copy of Kaffe and putting them both on an end-user's
system such that when I type eclipse I get a program made out of
both.
You don't get a program made out of both any more than you get a
The entirety of GPL section 2 applies only to works based on the
Program. In context, this applies only to derivative works and
(copyrightable) collections (the GPL says collective works, but this
is obviously a thinko) under copyright law. The combination of Kaffe
and Eclipse is neither of this
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Sniffen wrote:
Ignore the GPL FAQ for a minute and look at the GPL's 2b:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry writes:
Not that special. His argument makes sense to me. If Kaffe is
required for Eclipse to run, then it looks like a whole work to me.
However, Kaffe is not the only JVM that can run Eclipse. But it is
the only one in main.
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not
Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed
to work around the GPL or whether they are some kind of
Michael Poole wrote:
I think the disagreement is over what effect Debian's choice has.
It is not clear to me that saying either Y depends on the JVM or Y
depends on Kaffe or some Java interpreter is creative within the
meaning of copyright law or that it creates any sort of derivative
work.
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Yet, if you *package* this program together with a JVM, so that when
the user says I want to build this package or I want to run this
package the user gets your program with a specific JVM, then it's not
a mere aggregation, but these two are explicitely bound
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
If you at least went on and read next paragraph of the FAQ from which
you took the above.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide bindings to
other facilities (often, but not necessarily,
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you support this assertion? The program, including its libraries,
which the
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Now, before you go off ranting about Kaffe's native libraries, please
take a moment to let the fact sink in that while these native libraries
are the result of Kaffe developers being a somewhat clever bunch at
developing
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you support this assertion? The program,
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings, or whether it asks the user to tilt switches on
an array of light bulbs is irrelevant to the
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:39:09PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types apt-get
install eclipse; eclipse is a program incorporating a JVM and many
libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
distributing Kaffe -- the idea
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types apt-get
install eclipse; eclipse is a program incorporating a JVM and many
libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
distributing Kaffe -- the idea is that we'll be distributing the
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings, or whether it asks the user to tilt switches on
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings, or
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
