[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe



Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:

> Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
> 
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> >> Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
> > 
> > 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.

I do not believe it is productive to treat a packaging-specific
relationship as having any bearing on license questions.  Otherwise,
almost everything in Debian has that relationship with Required
packages, and plenty of those are GPLed with no exception.

If that is not what you meant, what is the relationship?

> 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
> >> thereof."
> 
> 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.

If you treat The Debian OS as having a relationship beyond mere
aggregation of its packages, then every package must be
GPL-compatible, which (as Dalibor Topic pointed out) would make the
GPL violate the DFSG.

Michael Poole



Reply to: