Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Brian Thomas Sniffen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Lewis Jardine <email@example.com> writes:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>>> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
>>> in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
>>> to the process of building a new program which has libfoo as a
>>> Additionally, the program ultimately delivered to the user isn't X
>>> with some minor bits of Y. It contains big chunks of Y -- one per
>>> function used, at least -- directly copied. Just being in a different
>>> memory space isn't enough to change the relationship between the
>>> creative parts of the works. The program vim encompasses a copy of
>> What about the case where there's a common ABI, such as Java written
>> against Sun's standard API, then compiled into Java Bytecode?
>> In this case, writing against Y is creative, but when the end-user
>> runs the program, is Java's run-time-linking creative or mechanical?
> What Java's doing is mechanical. But what Debian *instructed* it to
> do, by shipping Y and the Java run-time together such that when you
> ask for Y to be installed, you get Y and the JVM... that's clearly
>> Does this change when the program could also be linked with A, W, or
>> Z, all of which implement the same ABI?
> No. But it does matter which one Debian ships it with.
>> Does this change if there's no way to tell which of A, W, Y or Z X was
>> originally written against?
> The author's intent matters. If he writes against X, and Debian ships
> with Z instead, then that is an artistic choice on the Project's
> part. So if the author's intent isn't obvious, but it *could* be in
> the set of legitimate intents, I don't see a problem.
>> Does this change if the program is aggregated with W and Z, but not Y?
> You've now lost me in letters, and I don't understand this question.
> But the rest of these caused me to clarify my thinking on the matter,
> and to realize that there's always a person in the system who's
> imagining a combined work on an end-user system and taking action to
> put it there. This might be the original author, Debian or some other
> distributor, or the end-user. If it's anyone but the end-user, then
> that combined work is being distributed.
So you are basically saying that aiding or hinting the end-user to
create these would-be derivative works is enough to be violating the
license? Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with
instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the
bomb is most likely illegal.