Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <gadek@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:15 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <gadek@debian.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <gadek@debian.org> writes:
>> >> I fail to see the relevance of this paragraph to the discussion at
>> >> hand. The alleged incompatibility was between the interpreter (JVM)
>> >> and the program being interpreted. Does Eclipse make explicit use of
>> >> libraries licensed under the GPL?
>> >
>> > It surely does explicitely call java.lang.Object.wait() quite often
>>
>> java.lang.Object is part of the standard Java API published by Sun
>> (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/lang/Object.html).
>>
>> > (as any multithreaded java program), which in turn calls the JVM,
>>
>> Quite so.
>>
>> > which is purely GPLed.
>>
>> Incorrect. There exists a GPL JVM for sure, but there also exist
>> other JVM implementations (e.g. Sun's) equally capable of running
>> Eclipse.
>
> Please don't get that theorhetical. What we have here is an explicit
> usage,
Eclipse does not explicitly use *anything* from *any* JVM/class
library. Saying java.lang.Object doesn't say anything about which
implementation shall be used.
> not pure "possibilities", if there exist another implementations
> then use it and do not infridge on the GPL.
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
> Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
No, it is being interpreted by an interpreter that is covered by the
GPL. Even the FSF admits that this does not create a derived work.
> We are compiling GPL-incompatible code against purely GPLed headers.
Who is compiling what code? Since when does Java have headers?
> Please see Linus's email I cited in my other emails for more info.
>
> Would it have been compiled against a differently licensed library,
> this particular problem would be solved. Wouldn't it?
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: