Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Walter Landry wrote:
> > > There are a few ways to fix this whole issue
> > >
> > > 1) The Kaffe hackers get the library exemption added to _all_ of
> > > Kaffe.
> >
> > Not even the FSF has such an e
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:24:21AM +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Can you interpret shell scripts without GNU Bash? Can you interpret
> makefiles without GNU Make? Can you compile C programs without gcc?
gcc has a special exception precisely because the generated binaries
actually *are* derivative
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 lik
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 irrelevant
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
rela
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
If, the Debian system includes a copy of Eclipse that is intended to run
on Kaffe, can we claim that both are "merely aggregated"? The answer is no.
There's quite some evidence of this. Can you install (normally) the
Eclipse package and run it without Kaffe, on your Debian
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 a
Dalibor Topic wrote:
So, in other words, you CANNOT interpret the text of this FAQ as an
exception to the GPL. This FAQ is in now way legally binding, and it
has not even been written by its copyright holder(s) [or, more
precisely, agreed upon by all of them].
None of the the things you are tr
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
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 t
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, wh
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
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
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.
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
> distrib
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, which are surprisingly s
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> They are being put onto the same CD image by Debian. Well, will be
> put, if this goes into main. Also, when one is requested from apt the
> other is installed. Those links mean that this isn't mere
> aggregation, since mere aggregation would exist without them.
Hi All.
I am not subscribed to this mailing-list, so please CC answers to me (if
any).
In this message, I will highlight some facts. Note that I will discuss
the interpretation of the licenses of Classpath, Kaffe, and Eclipse in a
separate message.
Fact 1
==
Regarding the Kaffe FAQ at:
h
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 *spe
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So long as all they are is merely aggregated with it, this is true.
> When they are entwined with dependencies, every component of the
> collection must be distributed under the GPL.
So, as apache2 package in effect Depends: on kernel-image (it do
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 differenc
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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'.
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
> > Indeed it does. So what's your basis for saying that "Eclipse 3.0 and
> > Kaffe" is "a work"? Is it a "work based on the Program"? If it is,
> > then which of the following is it:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:46:36AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The Debian OS is a work containing a co
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.
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
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But distributing them as one work -- say, the Debian OS -- is covered
>> by the GPL. In what way is Debian not a "work that you distribute or
>> publish, that in whole or in p
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:31:13PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
>> >> production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> >> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > What Debian does or does not package would be irrelevant to a court's
> > decision as to whether Eclipse is a derivative of Kaffe
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
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 wordi
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But distributing them as one work -- say, the Debian OS -- is covered
by the GPL. In what way is Debian not a "work that you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program (Kaffe) or any
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
> " Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules
> is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms
> and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
> combination."
>
> The difference between Kaffe and GCJ
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 about an entire copy of Kaf
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
On Sat, 2005-15-01 at 00:20 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
less eclipse
That doesn't make eclipse a derived work of less.
Of course not. less is a filter-like program. It takes its input,
then displays it on screen as output.
So is any interpreter.
But Kaffe compiles t
On Sat, 2005-15-01 at 00:20 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> 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 o
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:31:13PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
> >> production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's
> >> right to control copying and distribu
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>> GNU classpath is GPL+linking exception which allows it to link with
>>> code that is licensed with GPL non-compatible licenses.
>> Thanks. That sounds like an important piece of evidence. So
>> certainly the GNU Classpat
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
>> production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's
>> right to control copying and distribution of copies. Reading GPL 2b,
>> I cannot se
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 about an entire copy of Kaffe. Debian contains a copy of
>> Kaffe. So
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
"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) under copyright law. ...
>
> My error -- "collective works" is treated as a
On Sat, 2005-15-01 at 22:37 +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> > Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
> > production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's
> > right to control copying and distribution of copies. Reading GPL 2
I wrote:
> ... 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. ...
My error -- "collective works" is treated as a synonym for
(copyrightable) collections in the US version
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 about an entire copy of Kaffe. Debian contains a copy of
> Kaffe. So any parts of Debian that aren't merely aggregated
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 K
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > 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.
> >
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When I instruct my computer running the
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:31:13PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
>> production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's
>> right to control copying and distribution of c
Please do not CC me.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:40:03AM +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Irrelevent. Kaffe is an interpreter, it's not a compiler like gcc. Kaffe
> creates no output of its input.
I didn't say it did; I said that the existance of an exception doesn't
imply that the author believes t
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I would assume that the same applies to Kaffe.
Well, if gcc has an explicit "output of this program isn't subject to
the GPL", even though the FSF says[1] that the output of a program
is generally not subject to the terms of the program outputting it
anyway, that probably mean
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:31:13PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
> production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's
> right to control copying and distribution of copies. Reading GPL 2b,
> I cannot see permiss
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's
right to control copying and distribution of copies. Reading GPL 2b,
I cannot see permission to distribute a CD with Eclipse and Kaffe on
i
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
GNU classpath is GPL+linking exception which allows it to link with
code that is licensed with GPL non-compatible licenses.
Thanks. That sounds like an important piece of evidence. So
certainly the GNU Classpath authors think that their code is copied
into programs b
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:45:23PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
> >> which are distributed with / part of Kaffe. There clearly are
> >> bindings provided there. The GNU Classpath package is GPL'd,
> >> right?
> >
> > GNU
Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>
>> Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
>> which are distributed with / part of Kaffe. There clearly are
>> bindings provided there. The GNU Classpath package
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
There's a third exception. The implicit exception "if you're not
doing something which requires permission from us in the first
place, then we can't prevent you from doing it". I think people are
arguing that it falls under the
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 2005-15-01 at 09:13 +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
>>> Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>>>
>>> > Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath librari
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > There's a third exception. The implicit exception "if you're not
> > doing something which requires permission from us in the first
> > place, then we can't prevent you from doing it". I think people are
> > arguing that it falls under the thir
Walter Landry writes:
> 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 Ecli
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2005-15-01 at 09:13 +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>>
>> > Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
>> > which are distributed with / part of Kaffe
On Sat, 2005-15-01 at 09:13 +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
> Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>
> > Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
> > which are distributed with / part of Kaffe. There clearly are
> > bindings provided there. The GNU
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linus specifically documented that he understood this issue and didn't
> consider the GPL to restrict what programs could be run on top of a
> kernel, so long as they used standard interfaces.
>
> But why do you think RMS is so keen to have a work
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
> eclipse, the code fr
Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
> which are distributed with / part of Kaffe. There clearly are
> bindings provided there. The GNU Classpath package is GPL'd,
> right?
GNU classpath is GPL+linkin
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
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
MÃns RullgÃrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So what? Eclipse is still only a Java program being interpreted by
Kaffe, which is perfectly within the limits set by the GPL.
Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
which are distributed with / part
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?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > 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
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> First, there's a separation exception:
>>
>> If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
>> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
>> works in themse
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
pack
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. That is why Eclipse needs to stay in contrib.
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
>
> Yo
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,
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 t
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 g
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But you can see that it's not mere aggregation, because they invoke
> each other when run.
Evidence is not proof.
--
Raul
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 soft
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
>
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
>>> eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
>>> package and from dozens of others are loaded into memor
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 t
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 dist
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
>> eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
>> package and from dozens of others are loaded into memory. The process
>> on my computer is mechanical, so we s
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> First, there's a separation exception:
>
> If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
> works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not ap
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking
>> about any work that in whole or in part contains the Program.
>> Eclipse+Kaffe
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 Kaf
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
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there actually is something going wrong, I'd really like for someone
> to spell out what it is in some fashion which addresses the above points.
Everything you said there seems reasonable to me (at first glance).
It's fine for the Kaffe developers and
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 -- t
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
> Your email messages do not contain calls to GPLed functions, do they?
Eclipse does not in itself contain calls to GPLed functions.
The contrast you attempt sounds broken.
Michael Poole
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Your email messages do not contain calls to GPLed functions, do they?
Depends on the message :)
But that's not the point. The point is that the mere existance of a
chunk of non GPL-compatible memory within a GPLd proces' memory does not
necessarily constitute a
On Fri, 2005-14-01 at 20:56 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> 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 Fed
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But you can see that it's not mere aggregation, because they invoke
> each other when run.
Evidence is not proof.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
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 soft
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
>
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
>>> eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
>>> package and from dozens of others are loaded into memor
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 Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 dist
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
>> eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
>> package and from dozens of others are loaded into memory. The process
>> on my computer is mechanical, so we s
101 - 200 of 381 matches
Mail list logo
