Re: SableVM/Kaffe pissing contest

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Walter Landry writes:

> 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?

Pardon, I meant "Eclipse" instead of "Kaffe" in the last line.

> 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?

Foo uses either GNU readline (or what)?

If you link Foo against GNU readline, then the usual debian-legal
interpretation is that the binary is a work derived from GNU readline,
since other implementations of the readline API are not usable.  Pure
Java binaries are different: they use only certain APIs, which are
available from many implementations.

I do not believe there would be any GPL violation if you distribute
the GNU readline source with GPL-incompatible source for Foo; from the
viewpoint of interoperability, C source distribution is closer to the
case of Java binaries.

Michael Poole