Walter Landry wrote:
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.
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String [] args) {
System.out.println("Hello World!");
}
}
Not derived from Kaffe and licensed under CPL for the sake of argument.
The class file resulting from compiling this code against Kaffe's class
libraries is not automatically covered by Kaffe's or its libraries GPL,
unless the work can be shown to specifically derive from them. It
doesn't, even though the class System is GPLd in Kaffe. See [1] for details.
Now we have an non-derived HelloWorld.class file and an interpeter. Running it is fine under the GPL, clause 0. SableVM developers disagree. If I can not run a GPLd program for any purpose, for example to run it on CPLd data, though, then GPL violates DFSG #6, and freedom 0 of the free software definition.
Going further, what the SableVM developers say is, among many other fascinating things, is that nevertheless, although the two works are not derived from each other, distributing them together also violates the GPL.
If that was the case, then GPL would put restrictions on works that are not derived from it, i.e. on unrelated data/works shipped along with it. Then GPL would not meet DFSG #9.
cheers, dalibor topic [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00010.html