Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
>>
>> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>> >
>> >> But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types "apt-get
>> >> install eclipse; eclipse" is a program incorporating a JVM and many
>> >> libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
>> >> distributing Kaffe -- the idea is that we'll be distributing the
>> >> Debian OS which includes both, linked together.
>> >
>> > Setting aside the trademark question, what ends up on the user's
>> > Debian system when he types "apt-get install mozilla-firefox;
>> > mozilla-firefox" is a program incorporating a GPLed kernel with
>> > incompatibly licensed application code. Why is that any different
>> > from what you describe?
>>
>> Linus specifically documented that he understood this issue and didn't
>> consider the GPL to restrict what programs could be run on top of a
>> kernel, so long as they used standard interfaces.
>
> The Kaffe folks have specifically stated that they understand the
> issue and don't consider the GPL to restrict Java programs that just
> happen to run on top of Kaffe -- again, so long as they use standard
> interfaces. So, again, why is Kaffe different in this respect than
> Linux?
Then why not put that explanation in the kaffe copyright file, making
it clear that this is under the license "GPL, plus permission to
distribute copies integrated with programs that use bindings, so long
as those bindings are in the Java standard published by Sun"?
>> But why do you think RMS is so keen to have a working, FSF-owned Hurd?
>
> NIH syndrome. What is your explanation?
I'm sure he'd like to make a system with guaranteed only free
programs.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: