No obscenes, please! [was: Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe]
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 of
> > both.
>
> You don't get a program made out of both any more than you get a program
> made out of less (GPL) and eclipse (CPL) by typing
>
> 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.
But Kaffe compiles the bytecode into native code that uses purely GPLed
functions from inside Kaffe. Will you tell me that it isn't so?
(Your analogy was completly broken.)
> As I was politely asked to educate people not getting what a derived
> work is, let me use a nice, graphical analogy. A lot of talk about
> software licensing is crap, so I hope you don't mind me using terms
> everyone, I believe, is familar with.
I DO mind. I am not very familiar with these obscene terms, I do not
use them, and they are surely not "nice" (yet another thing you're
trying to impose).
> You have to examine what's happening, dig your hands into the shit, and
> find the pieces of the bills sticking out to prove that an original work
> of love and labour, the pile of shit, is a derived work from the 100 USD
> bills. And that's why noone with a good sense of smell likes goddamn
> awful long boring pissing matches on debian-legal about hypothetical
> license interpretations like this one. People get shit all over their
> hands from digging around and other people start throwing shit around.
> It makes everyone stink.
Well, well. So you've eaten 100USD and we're supposed to prove you did?
We really do not have to ! We all _know_ it.
It is enough to take a look at the Build-depends of Eclipse package, to
know the licenses and to realize that these two inherently incompatibly
licensed parts of code have been combined into one work. Once we know
it, we know they cannot be distributed legally.
In Debian it's *that* simple!
The fact that the "leftowers" will look pretty much the same does not
mean you've not eaten the 100USD, if we have a different proof you did.
And we have!
So please stop being obscene and nonsensical, so that we could finish
this discussion earlier. Writing such emails will not scare anybody
off of the meritum of the discussion, if you were counting on that.
Cheers,
Grzegorz B. Prokopski
--
Grzegorz B. Prokopski <gadek@sablevm.org>
SableVM - Free, LGPL'ed Java VM http://sablevm.org
Why SableVM ?!? http://sablevm.org/wiki/Features
Debian GNU/Linux - the Free OS http://www.debian.org
Reply to: