Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Dalibor Topic <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 up part of the whole which is an IDE. This
> > relationship is well expressed by Debian dependencies.
> Under your intepretation all of debian must be GPLd as none of it will
> run without the GPLd kernel. That makes GPL violate DFSG and non-free.
> What a fascinating mess.
The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
> > Now, it is true that Eclipse will run with other JVMs. But if they
> > are not on the CD, then it doesn't matter. The GPL cares about what
> > it is distributed with, not about stuff it could be distributed with.
> > And the only thing allowed on the CD is stuff in main, because this
> > whole argument is over whether Eclipse can go into main. Not whether
> > Eclipse is distributable at all.
> The other VMs are on that CD, because they are in main already.
There are no JVM's on that CD that will run Eclipse.
> > 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 exception for their interpreters (Bash,
> Make, Less, ...) and that doesn't make their intepreters undistributable
> along with non-GPLd data in Debian. Why should Kaffe need such an
> exception for all of it?
Because there are non-GPL equivalents for Bash and Less (and I don't
think there are many programs that Depend: on Less). There may be
GPL-incompatible programs that depend on Bash specific features, in
which case bugs should be filed. I can't imagine there are that many.
I don't know of any GPL-incompatible programs distributed by Debian
that depend on Make during execution. At build time is a different
issue. I am not claiming that the result of running Make on a
makefile is necessarily derived from Make.
> > 2) The gcj or sablevm hackers get Eclipse working.
> I too, would prefer to see sableVM hackers get their VM fixed instead of
> raising fear, uncertainity and doubt about the legal status of using
> and distributing Kaffe.
And I would appreciate it if Kaffe hackers would stop complaining
about sableVM. It is a grand distraction from the issues.