Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <firstname.lastname@example.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:
"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?
Do you understand that a program being interpreted is effectively
linked to these facilities it uses thru these bindings?
Do you understand that in case we're discussing these facilities are
released under the GPL?
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)
> > 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.
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.
Please look at FSF FAQ once again, please try to understand what the
issue is, maybe ask some (finally!) *technical* questions about java,
interconnections between java library and a JVM, etc.
But if you intend to waste everybody's time, as you've been doing
so far - please, pretty please - go away!
Grzegorz B. Prokopski
Grzegorz B. Prokopski <email@example.com>
SableVM - Free, LGPL'ed Java VM http://sablevm.org
Why SableVM ?!? http://sablevm.org/wiki/Features
Debian GNU/Linux - the Free OS http://www.debian.org