Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-18 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-18 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-18 Thread Raul Miller
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-18 Thread Walter Landry
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

Re: Questions about legal theory behind (L)GPL

2005-01-18 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:27:08 +0100, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:53:58 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > > (don't use Google Search in the same tab as your GMail session!) > > Even better: don't use GMail at all, it has many privacy issues! It's free-as-

Re: Questions about legal theory behind (L)GPL

2005-01-18 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:04:09 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > I think you're confusing EULA with Copyright License. > > With copyright, the copyright holder grants license to the publisher > to make copies and that's usually the end of the story. There are > exceptions, of c

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-01-18 Thread Gervase Markham
Walter Landry wrote: > There is a difference between "simple as possible" and "undue burden". > It may turn out that as simple as possible is still hard. If it were > phrased something like > > To change the name, the Mozilla foundation will find it sufficient > to change only the single insta

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-18 Thread Walter Landry
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-18 Thread Walter Landry
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

Re: SableVM/Kaffe pissing contest

2005-01-18 Thread Walter Landry
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry writes: > > > I meant linking as a shorthand for "incorporated as a section of a > > whole work". Although Kaffe is actually objecting to being > > distributed while "linked" to Eclipse. > > My point is that it has no clear basis for that

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-01-18 Thread Walter Landry
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:53:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > > Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've > > > tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-01-18 Thread Alexander Sack
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In the extreme case we could ship a firefox package that depend on a iceweasel package that contains the actual program while firefox is just a dummy package that cause iceweasel to call itself firefox. It would be natural to do th

Re: Questions about legal theory behind (L)GPL

2005-01-18 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:53:58 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote: > (don't use Google Search in the same tab as your GMail session!) Even better: don't use GMail at all, it has many privacy issues! -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. ..

Re: Slashem licensing terms

2005-01-18 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 12:36:05AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: >> Yes. All authors who claim copyright in a source file should be >> credited in the Debian copyright file, together with the exact >> statement of license they issued. > I tried to learn

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird trademarks: a proposal

2005-01-18 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If it happens that the Debian packaging make very hard to rename > that package, we cannot blaim the Mozilla fundation for that and we > should rather try to fix the packaging scripts. It is true that we cannot blaim Mozilla for the Debian packaging m

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-18 Thread Raul Miller
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-18 Thread Joel Aelwyn
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-18 Thread Joel Aelwyn
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

Re: Questions about legal theory behind (L)GPL

2005-01-18 Thread Raul Miller
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:22 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I still don't see how this sub-license construction satisfies the mandate > > that "the recipient automatically receives a license from the original > > licensor..." On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:08:57PM -0800, Michael K

Re: Questions about legal theory behind (L)GPL

2005-01-18 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:22 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:55:47PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote: [snip] > > A mandate without an implementation is subject to construction. > > Construing agency to issue sublicenses leaves the contract between > > dist

Re: Questions about legal theory behind (L)GPL

2005-01-18 Thread Raul Miller
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:55:47PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > > As I understand it, generally speaking, a contract has two > > > parties -- offeror and offeree. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:04:02 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok. However, it's worth noting that these parti

unsubscribe

2005-01-18 Thread Byju_Michael
Byju Michael Dell | Product Group Bangalore Development Centre Bangalore, India Direct Dial: +91-80-280-77048 +91-80-511-77048 -Original Message- From: Andrew Suffield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Suffield Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 2:13 PM To: deb

Re: SableVM/Kaffe pissing contest (Was: GPL and Copyright Law)

2005-01-18 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:18:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:14:32PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > > The rest of your post is either intentionally or incompetently > > > misleading, since Java's idea of binary compatibility means that