Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Lewis Jardine <debian@catbox.co.uk> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> 
> > Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > 
> >>>>Once again, the only relations between Eclipse and Kaffe are "Eclipse
> >>>>is aggregated with Kaffe" and "Eclipse is run by Kaffe".
> >>>
> >>>And once again, you miss the point that Eclipse and Kaffe together
> >>>make a whole work.
> >>
> >>The make an aggregate work.  However, this aggregate work is not the
> >>work which is made when Kaffe is modified.
> > 
> > 
> > Debian distributes a modified Kaffe and Eclipse together.  Section 2
> > of the GPL does not care whether the modifications made to Kaffe are
> > for making Eclipse work better or not.
> > 
> > 
> 
> What is the difference between the following cases?
> 
> # Mr Foo packages Kaffe, making modifications to better integrate with 
> Debian
> # Mr Foo distributes Kaffe' to Mr Bar, complying with the GPL (including 
> Section 2)
> # Mr Bar distributes Kaffe' along with lots of GPL-incompatible java 
> programs, which he wrote and compiled with Sun's JDK. Note that Kaffe' 
> is completely unmodified.
> 
> # Mr Foo packages Kaffe, making modifications to better integrate with 
> Debian
> # Mr Foo distributes Kaffe' to Mr Bar, complying with the GPL (including 
> Section 2)
> # Mr Bar distributes Kaffe' to Mr Foo, complying with the GPL. Note that 
> Kaffe' is completely unmodified.
> # Mr Foo distributes Kaffe' along with lots of GPL-incompatible java 
> programs, which he wrote and compiled with Sun's JDK. Note that Kaffe' 
> is still completely unmodified.
> 
> I assert that the GPL does case about the nature of the modifications, 
> because at any point you can distribute a GPLed work to yourself.

You can't distribute to yourself.  You can make copies, but you can't
distribute.  For this particular case, I would be hesitant to say that
the distribution of Foo->Bar->Foo is really distribution.  It seems
like lawyerbait.

> If the 
>   GPLed work is separate from other works under copyright law, it 
> doesn't contaminate them at this point.

This is wishful thinking.  The paragraphs after GPL 2c clearly cover
collective works.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu