Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > There's a third exception. The implicit exception "if you're not
> > doing something which requires permission from us in the first
> > place, then we can't prevent you from doing it". I think people are
> > arguing that it falls under the third exception, not the other two.
> A copy of a creative work (Kaffe) is being distributed. That this
> doesn't require permission from the copyright holder is unlikely.
But the *difference* between distributing Kaffe alone and distributing it
with something else involves nothing that requires permission from the