Re: GCJ vs. Kaffe linking [was: Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe]
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
> " Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules
> is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms
> and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
> combination."
>
> The difference between Kaffe and GCJ is that in one case linking is
> dynamic, while in the other it is static. The type of linking does
> not affect the creation of combined work, which takes place in
> _both_ cases. (and is especially visible if we have the combined
> work distributed later by Debian)
If you use Eclipse with a JVM, then to the extent that a combined work
is created, it is created by the user or by the JVM. As you should
know, compiling a program using a JVM does not introduce peculiarities
of that JVM to the program. Or perhaps you do not know this, and we
should avoid using SableVM for any work that we wish to distribute or
reuse.
> And I just want to remind that parts of Kaffe's class library are
> purely GPL, so there is NO linking exception applying to them,
> therefore clearly we have a violation of GPL while combining a
> GPL-incompatible code with it. [*]
>
> [*] Not to mention that at runtime the program being interpreted is
> effectively linked to purely GPLed native parts of Kaffe, which again
> is creation of combined work, again, clearly documented by Depends:
> in Debian packages.
The GPL only limits works that you distribute. Users generally do not
distribute process images of their running JVM, and the only time that
Eclipse is combined with Kaffe is when executing it. Or do you use
Brian Thomas Sniffen's theory that The Debian OS is a combined work
that must be subject in its entirety to the GPL?
Michael Poole
Reply to: