Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Grzegorz B. Prokopski <gadek <at> debian.org> writes:
> Neither they agreed with yours, as you probably remember, but that's not
> the point. The point is, that, as you've mentioned yourself, there ARE
> non-GPLed JVMs (IKVM, gij, SableVM) that could be used to build Eclipse
> w/o breaching GPL.
The point is that your interpretion does not match with the
interpretation of the original copyright holders that wrote Kaffe and
worked with the FSF on that clause the SableVM FAQ waves around from the
GPL FAQ. :)
See http://web.archive.org/web/20011211201322/http://www.kaffe.org/FAQ.html
for details.
Beside, as the GPL explicitely says
"The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."
The GPL does not restrict running a program. So the claim that running
Eclipse on Kaffe is illegal is not supported by the GPL because
the GPL does not put restrictions on *running* Kaffe, which is what
you're shouting about. But yelling in subject headers of e-mails doesn't
make it any more true :)
Given that the GPL is a copyright-based license, it works via copyright
law. The SableVM FAQ argues as if the GPL worked by the magic of wishful
thinking, i.e. as if it was a click-wrap license. For the GPL to apply
to a derived work, that work needs to be actually deriving from the GPLd
work, which Eclipse's source code is not, afaik. If you think Eclipse
derives from some GPLd work, please take it to Eclipse developers.
> However if nobody stands up and say clearly, that there IS a problem,
> that GPL and CPL/APL are NOT compatible, and cannot be linked together,
> then we'll still see plenty people WASTING THEIR TIME on things that
> cannot legally benefit Debian Project and Debian users.
Note that Kaffe does not contain any CPL/EPL or ASL licensed code,
afaict, so the problem that you validly point out does not exist in
Kaffe source code.
I agree that GPL and ASL as well as GPL and CPL are not mutually
compatible. I think it's a pretty nasty problem that causes unfortunate
segmentation in the free software world into GPL-incompatible camps.
So what I try to do about it, as a Kaffe developer, and a free software
developer that thinks segmentation into GPL-incompatible camps to be
a bad thing, is to try to talk to people from FSF, ASF and ESF to do
what little bit I can do personally to help resolve whatever remaining
misunderstandings or problems there are in those licenses. I think Java
developement would suffer in particular from a prolonged segmentation,
so as a Java developer, I feel responsible to do a small bit to solve
the problem. I hope it helps.
As far as I can tell, SableVM does not magically solve the
incompatibility issue either, you just have a more permissive license
for the interpreter. The SableVM licensing FAQ takes the above problem,
assumes it applies to Kaffe, and makes a nice logical jump (while
yammering about 'vocal' Kaffe developers ruining the argumentation :) to
show how SableVM solves a particular, small instance of the problem, if
one assumes that the FAQ is correct that the problem actually applies
to Kaffe. Given that the authors of that FAQ aren't that sure if that's
the case either, I hope you don't mind me chosing a different point of
view ... :)
See, I try to fix things when I find them to be broken. I prefer to
constructive approach to solving problems that I find. For example, you
pointed out your GPL concerns to me a while ago, and while I didn't think
they were valid, I've taken action and Kaffe has now merged in almost
everything of GNU Classpath, which is licensed under the GPL with a very
liberal exception. While I think SableVM's interpretation is not valid,
I've been working on removing the source of SableVM developers'
confusion to make it easier for SableVM and Kaffe to work together,
rather then have to go through this 'IANAL, but what if GPL worked like
this ...' discussion over and over again.
That's how being constructive works for me. You see, I'm no fan of
shouting at other people, in particular that they are wasting their
time. If they happen to hack on or use another VM, that's perfectly fine
for me.
I personally think people should work more together, rather than
fighting for who's the biggest gold fish in the fish bowl, when there is
a whole lot of room outside the fish bowl for everyone. As I don't see
how pissing on my peers would be a constructive thing, I don't do it. :)
> Your POV, as Kaffe developer, not Debian, might be of course different,
> but I do not mean to bring up discussion whether Kaffe's "official"
> standing on the understanding GPL is right or not.
I'd never assume that I was Debian :)
Obviously, the Debian project needs to find out how it interprets the
GPL in this context, and then act accordingly. You've already taken your
cause to that process, and got
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00010.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00026.html
which are quite reasonable interpretations, afaict. Deal with it. :)
If you have another question in the context of the Debian project, you
can ask debian-legal, I'm sure they will be able to help out.
> > I find it tiresome to rehash the same disagreement about
interpeting the
GPL
> > over and over again each time there is a new SableVM release to
promote.
>
> Be it ANY JVM, but be it legally usable for the task. I would be happy
> if SableVM was used, because of very practical reasons. GCJ/GIJ we have
> in Debian has realatively old Classpath, compared to SableVM, so might
> not be good enough to run Eclipse. OTOH I have not noticed IKVM being
> packaged. Have I missed any non-GPLed VM? If not, then I think using
> SableVM gives the best chances of success.
IKVM is packaged actually. Kissme is packaged, too. :)
Look, SableVM's licensing FAQ doesn't even claim to be legally binding.
So your claims about it being illegal to use other VMs (like JamVM) are
based on the assumption that SableVM's licensing FAQ's claims are valid.
But SableVM developers make no such claims, they say
"The answers provided in this FAQ are correct, as far as we can tell,
but they are not legally binding. Only the licenses provided along the
software are legally binding. If you are unsure, please seek legal
counsel, or make contact with the copyright holders."
which translates to 'IANAL, maybe it's all bogus, if you think you need
a lawyer, ask for one, or ask someone who knows what they are talking
about'. That's a perfectly fine advice, and I agree with that.
But in this discussion you're taking something that's 'maybe true' and
postulating it as an axiom from which you then derive things that you
shout around as absolute truths. That's a cute rhetorical trick, but it
doesn't work that well when you're obviously not so sure about the
validity of your axioms yourself. :)
> That's very nice of you. Could you please keep personal jokes out of
> the picture? Thanks.
No, really. It's not a joke. I think SableVM deserves a lot of
popularity and success because it has some great developers, like
yourself, hacking and maintaining it. You guys have done a lot of nice
work to advance the state of the art in that research area, as well as
to write a nice, portable VM that runs pretty well on most debian
arches, as far as I hear. So I sincerely wish you most success in
pursuing your goals, and for SableVM as well, because I think you're all
a bunch of very nice and bright people that will make it far. I also
believe that SableVM is a nice addition to Debian that makes Debian more
useful to a lot of people. Keep up the great work!
Just because I think that the attempts in that SabmeVM licensing FAQ to
cast doubt on Kaffe's (and other VMs') legality are pretty bogus and
lame, doesn't mean that I don't think that the author of the SableVM
licensing FAQ is a wonderful person in general. Everyone makes
ocassional mistakes of judgement, even the brightest people, that's human.
> As we've been thru the issue once already, I ask you to at least cut off
> personal attacks. Otherwise you'll gurantee we won't get to any
> conclusions.
I'm sorry about the personal attacks, I didn't mean to hurt. I'd like to
apologize for any such attacks slipping into my reply. If you point out
to me where I crossed the line, I'll try hard to avoid that next time
around.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Reply to: