Re: SableVM/Kaffe pissing contest (Was: GPL and Copyright Law)
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 a
> > compiled Eclipse package does not contain any copyrightable portion of
> > the class libraries that provide declarations to the compiler. That
> > is what determines whether the binary package is a derivative work of
> > the class library package.
>
> That's not entirely true. The binary package is a derivative work of
> the class library package if:
>
> (a) it contains a literal creative part of the class library,
> or a derivative of such a part
>
> or
>
> (b) it contains a literal creative part of the java source or a
> derivative of such (pretty much a given or the compiler wouldn't
> be much use), and the java source is a derivative of the class
> library
Does (b) refer to the use of features that are specific to one
implementation (or at least one license)? Or do you mean something
broader?
> About the only thing I've seen that will do (a) is static linking in
> an ELF object, or anything comparable. (b) is the one that we normally
> deal with in Debian.
>
> [Always remember: derivation is a transitive relation. If a is derived
> from b, and b is derived from c, then a is derived from c]
This is not true. The parts that make A a derivative of B may be
disjoint from the parts that make B a derivative of C. (When those
works are virally licensed, the license is transitive.)
For example, Jo publishes a novel featuring a character called Cowboy,
and uses (with appropriate permission) the famous Batman character.
That novel is a derivative of various Batman works. If Lou publishes
a novel featuring the Cowboy character with no mention of Batman, it
is a derivative of Jo's novel, and needs Jo's permission; it is not a
derivative of the Batman works.
Michael Poole
Reply to: