Re: SableVM/Kaffe pissing contest
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> nEtienne Gagnon writes:
>
> > Now, the question one should answer is the following:
> >
> > If, the Debian system includes a copy of Eclipse that is intended to
> > run on Kaffe, can we claim that both are "merely aggregated"? The
> > answer is no.
> >
> > There's quite some evidence of this. Can you install (normally) the
> > Eclipse package and run it without Kaffe, on your Debian system (as
> > defined above: main, 100% free software)? No.
>
> This is irrelevant: The law does not care whether anyone restricts
> himself to what Debian restricts itself to. The SC also recognizes
> that many users will use non-Debian software. For example, from the
> end of SC 5: "although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we
> support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our
> bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software
> packages." That infrastructure includes identifying possible
> dependencies on non-free software that may satisfy the dependency of
> free software.
>
> As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose
> would mean that the GPL is a non-DFSG-free license.
Where was that? I have seen no such convincing explanation.
> The rest of your post is either intentionally or incompetently
> misleading, since Java's idea of binary compatibility means that a
> compiled Eclipse package does not contain any copyrightable portion of
> the class libraries that provide declarations to the compiler. That
> is what determines whether the binary package is a derivative work of
> the class library package.
>
> Please stop turning debian-legal into a pissing contest. Is SableVM
> so technically inferior that it must compete based on faulty political
> arguments rather than technical merit? Once upon a time, there was a
> community known as the free software community, and it held as its
> goal the production of high-quality software rather than bickering
> over which free software license was better.
You must be involved with some other free software community. People
have bickered over licenses since the beginning.
> sablevm simply does not provide the java2-runtime virtual package that
> Eclipse otherwise requires. Is that all this is about? Kaffe will
> deliver Eclipse compatibility before SableVM, therefore SableVM must
> prevent Debian from delivering popular software that works with Kaffe?
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: