Re: SableVM/Kaffe pissing contest
Walter Landry writes:
> > > > We covered all this earlier, and there was no good explanation of why
> > > > Eclipse + Kaffe is bad but other GPL-incompatible packages + GPLed
> > > > Essential: yes packages are okay. For example: does any non-GPL
> > > > package that calls out (using only cross-platform options) to one of
> > > > the binaries in coreutils, diff, find, grep, gzip, etc violate the
> > > > GPL?
> > >
> > > Many of the utilities are covered by the exemption given by the FSF in
> > > the gpl-interpreter FAQ.
> >
> > The gpl-interpreter FAQ addresses the interpreted scripts, not
> > programs that use the utilities to operate.
>
> The FAQ addresses a GPL'd language and non-GPL'd scripts, which is
> exactly what we have here.
The FAQ also addresses the execution relationship, and does not
mention distribution together or separately. I cannot see how your
interpretation of "whole work [based on the Program]" can be applied
to Eclipse but not to other non-GPL packages which use GPLed utilities
that are Essential on a Debian system.
If the argument is that there is a non-"mere aggregation" relationship
determined by the Depends relationship, the entire Debian system has
the same relationship to Essential packages. If the argument is that
there is a non-"mere aggregation" relationship due to Eclipse needing
a Java interpreter or compiler, the gpl-interpreter FAQ answers it.
(Incidentally, is not gjc in main? It seems a likely candidate to
substitute for Kaffe if you wish for another GPL-free way to execute
Eclipse.)
Michael Poole
Reply to: