Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org> writes:

> 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.

True.

But distributing them as one work -- say, the Debian OS -- is covered
by the GPL.  In what way is Debian not a "work that you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program (Kaffe) or any part thereof"?

> 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.

There is a slight mistake in what you have said.  My claim is that
Eclipse does not infringe, but a work containing Eclipse and Kaffe
entwined does.  Something copyrightable, GPLd from Kaffe has to end up
in the copy of *Debian* that is being distributed, which it clearly
does.

> 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.

Were that the case, Eclipse could go in Main without Kaffe being
there at all.  But it's not in main right now -- because there's no
free JVM for it to depend on.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu