Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

> Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> > Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is
> > not subject to the GPL.

On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The key word is "by itself".  There is no problem with Eclipse being
> distributed alone.  The problem is when it is distributed with Kaffe.
> Kaffe's license cares about the company it keeps.

I see no such problem.

Since you claim to, please cite the specific, relevant language from
the GPL that "cares about the company it keeps".  And, indicate why
those parts of the GPL are significant to the combination of Eclipse
+ Kaffe.  [To me, "the company it keeps" sounds like the same topic as
"mere aggregation".]

For example, in another context, "the company it keeps" might refer
to the part of section 3 which states that the "complete source code"
for a modified version of Kaffe means "all modules it contains, plus
any associated interface definition files, plus scripts used to control
compilation and installation of the executable."  But clearly, Eclipse
doesn't fit in any of these categories.

You might try to argue that Eclipse + Kaffe is not "mere aggregation",
but I see nothing in the GPL to support that contention.  I do see
specific language in the GPL which implies that Eclipse+Kaffe is nothing
more than aggregation: "The act of running the Program is not restricted".

To my knowledge, the only relationships between Eclipse and Kaffe are
that Kaffe runs Eclipse, and that we would be packaging them together,
in a fashion which would enable this runtime relationship.  But neither
of those things are restricted.

If you are arguing that Eclipse + Kaffe is not merely aggregation, please
describe the relationship, in specific terms, and indicate the section(s)
of the GPL where this matters.

The way I read the GPL:

[*] Kaffe running Eclipse is not restricted.
[*] Packaging Kaffe with Eclipse is not restricted.
[*] Imposing any such restriction violates the GPL.

This characterization would become incorrect if Kaffe were modified
in some fashion that made Eclipse a part of Kaffe, but no one seems to
believe that that's the case.

I might be wrong, but if so I would really appreciate it if someone
would spell out the specific clauses of the GPL which I'm overlooking.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul