Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <gadek@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <gadek@debian.org> writes:
>> > 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.
>
> You really should reread FSF FAQ:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>
> "However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to
> other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the
> interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses
> through these bindings. So if these facilities are released under the
> GPL, the interpreted program that uses them must be released in a
> GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of
> such a binding mechanism; libraries that are accessed in this way are
> linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them. These
> libraries are also linked with the interpreter. If the interpreter is
> linked statically with these libraries, or if it is designed to link
> dynamically with these specific libraries, then it too needs to be
> released in a GPL-compatible way."
>
> Do you understand that an interpreter for Java IS such an interpreter
> that provides "bindings" to other facilities?
The paragraph above concerns JNI interfaces to libraries *separate*
from the interpreter. For instance, one could imagine a JNI binding
to GNU readline. The use of such bindings is independent of the JVM
being used (bindings might not exist for all JVM implementations, but
that's irrelevant). The existence of a binding facility does not make
a program using them derived from the interpreter. In FSF logic, it
is derived from the bound libraries, no more, no less.
> Do you understand that a program being interpreted is effectively
> linked to these facilities it uses thru these bindings?
Yes. Which bindings does Eclipse use?
> Do you understand that in case we're discussing these facilities are
> released under the GPL?
We are discussing the case where the interpreter is released under the
GPL, nothing has been said about third-party library bindings.
> Do you understand that in case we're discussing even the java library
> itself is under GPL? (or at least parts of it, which is about the same)
Doesn't matter. There exist other implementations, and a program
can't possibly be derived from more than one. Don't you see the
inconsistency?
>> > We are compiling GPL-incompatible code against purely GPLed headers.
>>
>> Who is compiling what code? Since when does Java have headers?
>
> Either you're not capable of abstracting notion of headers as they're
> used in C, or not willing to do so. What do you think, in Java,
> provides you with the informations that you're given thru headers in C?
>
>> > 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.
>
> Ok, so please compile Eclipse agains an *interface* which is not its
> implementation (covered by GPL, in our case). Sure, if you use ie.
> some stubs covered by IPC-compatible license, I won't say a word.
If the implementations are fully compatible, the compiled bytecode
should be bit-identical no matter which one was used.
> But in our case you're using an implementation that also at the same
> time defines the interface (this if functional equivalent of header
> files). You cannot simply take a GPL implementation, compile against it
> (never mind whether it's C, Java, Python or whatever), and they claim
> you just didn't create a derivative work of the implementation you used.
That's precisely what I am claiming, and several court cases support
my claim.
> Please look at FSF FAQ once again, please try to understand what the
Reading the same FUD over and over again isn't going to alter the
logic of the universe.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: