Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's right to control copying and distribution of copies. Reading GPL 2b, I cannot see permission to distribute a CD with Eclipse and Kaffe on it, such that Eclipse runs on top of Kaffe when I insert the CD.
Bullshit. There is no GPL violation in Eclipse, no violation in Kaffe, no violation in running Eclipse on Kaffe, no violation in distributing Eclipse, no violation in distributing Kaffe, so there can be no GPL violation in distributing these sperate, independant works on the same medium as separate works.
As Eclipse never was a derived work from Kaffe in the first place, it can't become one just because Brian Thomas Sniffen closes his eyes and wishes for it to happen. GPL does not work like pixie dust. Something copyrightable, GPLd from Kaffe has to end up in the copy of Eclipse *that is being distributed* for your claim to have any merit, and it doesn't, as has been thoroughly explained in this thread.
It doesn't concern Eclipse any more than distributing the Linux kernel, gcc, bash, or anything else under the GPL does, because to all these programs, Eclipse is a bunch of data, just like for Kaffe.
Can we stop flogging a dead horse now, please? cheers, dalibor topic