Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>> Michael Poole <email@example.com> 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.
Read the question and my answer again. This is not about whether one
is a derivative of the other. This is about whether they have a
relationship beyond mere aggregation.
Neither is it about what the DFSG or policy say about compatible
licenses of Dependencies. It is about what the GPL says about
distributing copies of GPL'd works.
>> > 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
I've snipped your explanations, because while they're all true, none
of them address the whether the Debian OS contains a copy of Kaffe.
>> > 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.)
That's a bug in the kernel packages, because it's an important
exception to the GPL. It also doesn't say anything about
Linux-specific channels, just about standard interfaces. /proc is
certainly fine; even GPL-incompatible modules are OK, I think.
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org