Re: SableVM/Kaffe pissing contest

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> 
> > Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> Eclipse compiled against Kaffe and distributed separately would not
> violate the GPL: the compiled verison of Eclipse would not be a
> derivative of Kaffe.  If distributing them together violates the GPL,
> then the GPL contaminates Kaffe in violation of DFSG #9.

You are saying that Kaffe contaminated itself?  How does that violate
DFSG #9?

Suppose I have a program Foo which uses either GNU readline.  I can
compile Foo against GNU readline (but not link it), and distribute the
result.  I can also distribute GNU readline separately.  But I can not
distribute foo and GNU readline together.  How is this different from
your case?

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu