[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <gadek@debian.org> writes:

> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> writes:
>> [large discussion of C snipped out]
>> >>In the case of Java, the binding is even looser.  A class might
>> >>contain references to other classes which the JVM is free to look for
>> >>anywhere it pleases.  AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API
>> >>as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation
>> >>of said interface.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Great -- which implementation does Debian ship it with?  That's all
>> > that really matters.
>> I disagree that it's all that matters. It also matters whether the 
>> implementation that Debian ships actually puts any restrictions on the 
>> license on its data, or whether it doesn't. Kaffe, being an interpreter, 
>> does not, afaict:
>> "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."[1]
>> As the GPL of the interpreter does not place any restrictions on the 
>> data, the incompatibility of intepreter's GPL and data's CPL does not 
>> matter, as the data never becomes limited by the GPL and the license 
>> conflict never happens.
> To cite Linus:
> "You are a weasel, and you are trying to make the world look the way you
>  want it to, rather than the way it _is_."
> If you at least went on and read next paragraph of the FAQ from which
> you took the above.
> 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."

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?

> Plese stop claiming the black is white.  Thanks.

If you want it black, paint it black.  Rewrite the GPL.

Måns Rullgård

Reply to: