Re: SableVM/Kaffe pissing contest

[Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org>]

Walter Landry wrote:
> 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?

Because Eclipse is not a derived work of Kaffe.

cheers,
dalibor topic