Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed to work around the GPL or whether they are some kind of implementation of some Java standard.
They are an implementation of some Java standard.
Or is Eclipse 3.0 using only the facilities which Kaffe provides for arbitrary byte code?
Yes.
There is nothing in the FAQ that would suggest that these "facilities" have to be provided for a specific program.There is nothing in the FAQ to suggest that a GPLed JNI implementation has to be a problem for arbitrary code, though of course it does point out JNI as a issue that can be a problem. But for problem resolution, the FAQ is saying that certain things need to be released in a GPL-compatible way, not that no release can happen.
Yes. The internals of how a GPLd interpreter goes about loading GPLd parts of itself, whether through JNI, dlopen, lt_dlopen, or by asking its users to punch holes on cards are irrelevant. Just because my long replys to anti-GPL fud cause a GPLd garbage collector to run ocassionally in a GPLd text editor that I use, doesnt mean that the authors of the text editor can restrict my long replies to be licensed under the GPL :)
An interpretation of the GPL where, depending on the internals of the GPLd interpreter, the GPL of the interpreter would restrict its use to GPL-only data would go afoul of DFSG #6 and #9, I guess, beside claiming rights that are not given to an interpreter by the copyright law.
cheers, dalibor topic