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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org> writes:

> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org> writes:
>> 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"?
> That's the 'Debian OS includes a GPLd work, so everthing must be GPLd'
> fallacy. :)
> It is in the same way the Debian OS is not illegal to distribute just
> because it in whole or in part contains both the Linux kernel and the
> apache web server, as the GPL is incomatible with the apache
> license. But as the GPL of one work does not put restrictions on
> separate, non-derived works distributed alongside it, everything is
> fine.

So long as all they are is merely aggregated with it, this is true.
When they are entwined with dependencies, every component of the
collection must be distributed under the GPL.

> Were your intepretation correct, the GPL would not be DFSG-free, and
> the kernel, gcc, bash, and all that would have to move to non-free
> leaving nothing in main, afaict.
>> 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.
> Debian does not distribute Kaffe and Eclipse entwined though. Eclipse
> contains no part of Kaffe nor is it derived from it. Neither is Kaffe
> derived from Eclipse or contains parts thereof. So there is nothing
> copyrightable from one work ever ending up in the other and no mixing
> happens in the separate packages.
> Debian OS already has the licenses to distribute both eclipse and
> Kaffe. As no DFSG-free license places restrictitons on data
> distributed on the same medium alongside it, there is no problem in
> doing so.
>>>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.
> Eclipse is not in main because of debian's policy for main, which
> says, afaik among other things, that a work can only go into main if
> both the license of the work is DFSG-free and it is buildable with
> other works in main. And the latter just happened.
> As Gadek is annoyed that Eclipse 3 builds and works with Kaffe but not
> with his 'competing' SableVM, he tried to scare the Eclipse 3 packager
> from submitting it by shouting that running Eclipse on Kaffe is
> illegal (see subject ;).
> That's all a part of a long FUD campaign against users, developers and
> distributors of Kaffe led by a few SableVM developers since 2002, in
> order to scare people into using, developing and distributing SableVM
> instead of Kaffe.

Sigh.  That's more disgusting than your dollar bills.

> I'm sorry for using very graphical terms on this list and to vomiting
> all over you in particular. I've lost my patience there. I've been at
> the receiving end of this anti-Kaffe, anti-GPL fud every couple of
> months since mid-2002, and I've been at the receiving end of vague
> suggestions that I could be sued in Canada[1], the home of SableVM
> developers, for interpreting the GPL in the way that is not to a
> SableVM developer's liking, and so on, and so on, despite that the
> original authors of Kaffe clearly interpreted the GPL in a very
> permissive way, as can be seen here:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20011211201322/http://www.kaffe.org/FAQ.html
> "Can I run proprietary Java applications and native JNI libraries
> under Kaffe?
> Yes, you can. Kaffe's choice of GPL does not affect your ability to
> run any Java or JNI-based code that you could run on any other Java
> virtual machine."

Can you get an explicit answer from them as to whether you can
distribute proprietary applications with Kaffe?


Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: