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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> writes:

> Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>>> It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
>>> GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate.  You may have
>>> some odd version of Eclipse, but the standard releases have no such
>>> requirement.
>> While most of what you said seemed perfectly reasonable, this does
>> not.
>> Some distribution of Eclipse is encumbered by the GPL if it, that
>> distribution, includes a copy of a GPL'd work (and it is not mere
>> aggregation, which this certainly isn't).  So shipping Eclipse+Kaffe
>> is not OK.  Shipping Eclipse+otherJVM is fine.
> Your definition of "include" appears to be a little broader than the
> one most of us use.

I am using the plain English meaning: if I ship you a CD with Eclipse
and Kaffe so that all you have to do is double-click some icon and it
runs, that is a distribution of Eclipse including Kaffe.

>> I do not think anyone will disagree with this.  Can we now confine
>> this argument to whether a program distributed as a 
>> package with Depends: jre | java-runtime contains a copy of a package
>> with Provides: java-runtime?
>> I'm inclined to say no, that that is not the intended operating state,
>> merely an incidental of technically compatible packages -- and so even
>> if Eclipse had a Depends: some-non-kaffe-jvm | java-runtime and Kaffe
>> a Provides: java-runtime, there would be no conflict with the GPL here.
> You're starting to make sense.

Merely because I'm reaching a conclusion which you find palatable?
This reasoning is grounded on the same axioms and rules I've been
using all along.


Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: