Re: SableVM/Kaffe pissing contest
Walter Landry writes:
> 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.
The only time there is such linkage is at the option of the user, who
uses Kaffe from Debian rather than a Java runtime from some other
source. The user does not (in the usual case) distribute the
resulting combination.
> > > 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.
If either is usable, I would say that distributing both Foo and GNU
readline as part of Debian was okay. The Foo package would say
something like Requires: readline | bsd-readline; the Eclipse package
Requires: kaffe | java2-runtime. Why is either a violation?
We covered all this earlier, and there was no good explanation of why
Eclipse + Kaffe is bad but other GPL-incompatible packages + GPLed
Essential: yes packages are okay. For example: does any non-GPL
package that calls out (using only cross-platform options) to one of
the binaries in coreutils, diff, find, grep, gzip, etc violate the
GPL?
Michael Poole
Reply to: