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:
> > > > > 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.

I meant linking as a shorthand for "incorporated as a section of a
whole work".  Although Kaffe is actually objecting to being
distributed while "linked" to Eclipse.

> > > > 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?

I am talking about a CD that does not have bsd readline.  To clarify,
imagine the CD were made without access to bsd readline at all.  Would
that be allowed?

> 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?

Many of the utilities are covered by the exemption given by the FSF in
the gpl-interpreter FAQ.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu