Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Raul Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >  Debian dependencies. [The GPL doesn't seem to have any requirements
> > > in this area.]
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:06:31PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Actually, it does. The GPL says (with some parts elided)
> > If sections are separate works, then this License does not apply to
> > those sections __when you distribute them as separate works__. But
> > when you distribute the __same__ sections as part of a whole which
> > is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
> > be on the terms of this License.
> You seem to be begging the question.
> The GPL doesn't say that.
That is why I included the parenthetical "with some parts elided".
> I'm guessing that the paragraph you've
> rephrased is:
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
> distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work
> based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
> terms of this License, ...
> This does not equate to debian's dependencies. The GPL has very clearly
> limited its scope (to "the Program" and/or a "work based on the Program")
> and debian can have dependencies for any of a variety of reasons not
> relating those particular concepts.
I will grant you that the mapping between Debian dependencies and
"whole works" is not perfect. But it is pretty good.
> In other words, you can't answer the question is this thing an
> example of "the Program" or a "work based on the Program" with
> a condition which exists only for modified copies of "the Program"
> or a "work based on the Program".
I don't see the relevance of this distinction. Debian patches Kaffe,
and reserves the right to patch it further. Otherwise, Kaffe could
not go into main.
> > If I give you a CD with Eclipse and Kaffe on it, I have given you a
> > whole work which will edit programs.
> "which will edit programs" is:
> [a] Not an issue for Copyright law. (No one seems to question this.)
> [b] Not an issue for the GPL. (The GPL explicitly states that it does
> not restrict running the program.)
The GPL does care about "whole works". You just quoted it. Are you
saying that the GPL does not care about "whole works"? The rest of
your response seems predicated on this.