On Saturday 01 November 2003 20:08, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
The big question seems to come done to:
"What part of Java is library and what part is language?"
It seems to me that at least the syntax *and* java.lang *is* the
language... Thus as long as you don't use anything else then java.lang
classes, you can use kaffe to run *any* Java byte code, independent which
license...
The FSF seems to disagree with you there. See the GPL FAQ:
If only the part below makes you believe that the GPL FAQ disagrees,
then I tend not to agree... Contrarily, I think this FAQ items supports my
point:
I think the text clearly distinguishes from language and library part of
interpreters... just like my argument. The java.lang package *is* the Java
language, not a library part... everything else under java.* is library...
So the FAQ items actually supports my view that if you only use Kaffe
to interpret java.lang classes and nothing else, then Kaffe just interprets
the language, and the FAQ states that it then does not require the program
run by Kaffe needs to be GPL too...
Egon
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
[Please note the 3rd paragraph of the answer.]
Q)If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does
that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under
GPL-compatible licenses?
A)When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The
interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software
license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you
use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program),
any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data
to anyone.
The language is the syntax + java.lang classes. (IMHO) The .lang must come
from somewhere...