Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:29:13PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> copyrightable. To get at the cases the FSF is shooting for, they
> would have to use terms of art instead of "derivative or collective
> works", and would have to insert far more draconian provisions to
> create an action for breach of contract when GPL and non-GPL works are
I think we might disagree about which cases the FSF is shooting for.
That they've provided a FAQ which states things a certain way probably
has more to do with the questions they've been asked than it does the
design intent of the GPL.