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:
> > > 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.

In that case, it sounds like Kaffe is objecting to being linked to
Eclipse, much like GNU readline objects to being linked to
GPL-incompatible code.  I don't see the problem with 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?
> 
> Foo uses either GNU readline (or what)?

bsd readline (whoops)

> 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.

In this case, bsd readline will also work, so Foo is not derived from
GNU readline.  bsd readline won't actually be distributed with Foo,
but it would work if it did.  Would you say that distributing Foo with
GNU readline and without bsd readline is ok?  I would not.

> 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.

The GPL has very different rules for source distribution, and, in
particular, does not make claims about the work as a whole.  Source is
defined as the preferred form for modification, and Java binaries are
definitely not that.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu