Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> >> Fortunately, the sentence beginning "A program using..." is not
> >> relevant to my argument. I'm not talking about derivative works. I'm
> >> talking about an entire copy of Kaffe. Debian contains a copy of
> >> Kaffe. So any parts of Debian that aren't merely aggregated with
> >> Kaffe need to be distributed under the terms of the GPL. Read GPL 2,
> >> particularly 2b.
> >
> > You have not yet provided any good reason for us to believe that the
> > Eclipse and Kaffe packages have some relationship beyond mere
> > aggregation, especially if neither is a derivative work of the other.
>
> The Depends: line, and the fact that Kaffe will be the only JVM in
> main capable of running Eclipse. Debian wouldn't be shipping Eclipse
> in Main if Kaffe weren't there. It would have to go in Contrib.
What Debian does or does not package would be irrelevant to a court's
decision as to whether Eclipse is a derivative of Kaffe. It is not
clear to me that either the DFSG or policy support the proposal that
packages must be compatibly licensed with what they Depend on.
> > It has been explained repeatedly in this thread why GPL 2b from Kaffe
> > does not apply to Eclipse (either considered as upstream software or
> > as packages). GPL 2b can only apply to Eclipse if Eclipse is a
> > derivative of some GPLed work, yet you claim your argument is not
> > about derivative works.
>
> I have seen no such explanation -- can you point me at such a message?
> I have been very clear that I am talking about the part of GPL 2b
> which says "in whole or in part contains...the Program or any part
> thereof."
As upstream packages: You can compile and run Eclipse using any
environment that provides enough of Java's features. If you think
that Eclipse is a derivative of the APIs it uses (I do not), the APIs
did not originate with Kaffe. If you think that Eclipse is a
derivative of works if those works are the only implementation of a
particular API (I do not think this is settled), implementations of
the APIs abound.
As packages at build time: When you compile Eclipse using Kaffe, it
contains no part of Kaffe. That is fundamental to Java's binary
compatibility. The conversion from Java source code to Java bytecode
is also mechanical rather than creative.
As packages at runtime: The only time parts of the JVM are ever
incorporated into the program is at runtime, by the JVM's own choice.
It is not rational to think that a JVM may subject processed data,
data that is not further copied, to the GPL by the JVM's choices.
> > Your interpretation would require that almost all packages in main be
> > GPL-compatible due to the kernel being GPLed (among other undesirable
> > results).
>
> I don't think it's that bad -- most programs in Debian are merely
> aggregated together. The kernel has a specific exception, cited
> elsewhere in this thread.
/usr/share/doc/kernel-image-*/copyright mentions no such exception,
which suggests Debian does not wish it to apply. Even if it does, it
will not apply to many programs, since they communicate with the
kernel using Linux-specific channels besides system calls. (The
extended format of /proc is one example.)
Michael Poole
Reply to: