On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:33:31AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:15:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > > Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org> wrote: > > > Andrew Suffield quite effectively debunked your 'Kaffe's GPld portions > > > of class library library automatically infect everything Java > > > application they touch' nonsense in November 2003 already right here on > > > debian-legal. > > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-java@lists.debian.org/msg03572.html > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-java@lists.debian.org/msg03575.html > > > > Andrew actually made a convincing argument that java applications are > > not derived works of the class libraries they use. > > Not *always* derived works. They *can* be, they just don't *have* to be. (This does not appear to be in any way relevant to any recent parents in this thread, btw) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature