Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <gadek@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>> ...
>> > Do you understand that an interpreter for Java IS such an interpreter
>> > that provides "bindings" to other facilities?
>>
>> But was Kaffe _extended_ to provide such bindings for Eclipse 3.0?
>
> This FAQ entry discusses 2 cases. One is when we have an interpreter,
> that basically goes over the pseudo-code and purely "interprets" it
> (an old BASIC interpreter would fit here). No Java VM/interpreter
> _ever_ fits in this first, simple casse.
I think you're making untenable conclusions based on your knowledge of
accidents of implementation of Java VMs. A Java bytecode interpreter
is just an interpreter. The class libraries matter, and the libraries
exposed through the JNI interface matter.
> On the contrary. A Java Virtual Machine (Java interpreter) inevitably
> has to provide such bindings to support Java specification. In other
> words the interpreter itself has to be extended with a library that
> provides these bindings to support Java specs. There's plenty of these
> bindings required to exist in core java.lang.* classes.
This confuses me, though. Can you provide an unambiguous example?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: