[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:43:08PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> But none in Debian main.  People seem to be missing the point, so I
> will repeat: I am not saying that Eclipse is not distributable, just
> that it can't go into main.

That's easy to say.  It's much harder to back up.

The distinction between main and not-main is purely a DFSG issue.  The GPL
doesn't care about this distinction at all.  If you were talking about
a GPL license conflict between Eclipse and Kaffe, you'd have to say that
Eclipse is not distributable at all.

So, you have to show that there's something about the DFSG or the Eclipse
license that prevents Eclipse from going in Main.

> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > The kernel has an exemption.  This has been pointed out more than
> > > once.

> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > Irrelevant:

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:43:27PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> You seem to be missing the point.  Someone pointed out that my
> interpretation would require all programs to be GPL compatible.  I
> pointed out an exemption.

If I recall correctly, that point was about "all the programs in Debian",
not "all programs everywhere".

But, the exemption you pointed out doesn't apply to Debian.

That makes it irrelevant.

> > > There are no JVM's on that CD that will run Eclipse.

> > Irrelevant.
> It is relevant if you are trying to satisfy all of the dependencies
> for Eclipse in main.  I am not quite sure what you are responding to.

If you're talking about the behavior of the packaging system, that
would be relevant on some other mailing list... but as a general rule
not on debian-legal.

If you're talking about licensing -- you haven't shown anything to
be relevant.

> > > > [3] 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.

> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > You seem to be begging the question.
> > 
> > The GPL doesn't say that.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:57:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> That is why I included the parenthetical "with some parts elided".

In other words: the GPL doesn't say that -- it says something very
different.  But it contains phrases which can be rearranged to say what
you said.

Of course, what you said has not relevance to the DFSG, the GPL, Exlipse,
Kaffe, or pretty much anything else.  But you can take some satisfaction
in having said something which had a certain internal self consistency.

> > 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.

This doesn't make Eclipse a part of Kaffe, or of a work based on Kaffe.

Which means that the GPL's "work as a whole" clauses don't come into
play at all.

Eclipse is associated with Kaffe, when it's associated at all, only in
the context of running Kaffe, and the GPL explicitly states that the
act of running Kaffe is not restricted.

> > 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.

Debian, as a whole, is not a work based on Kaffe.  The relationship of
Debian, as a whole, to Kaffe, is covered in the GPL in the sentence that
talks about "mere aggregation".

Eclipse isn't a part of Kaffe.

Eclipse isn't a part of a work based on Kaffe.

Eclipse is a part of an aggregate work which includes Kaffe (but that's
OK, according to the GPL).

Eclipse is run by Kaffe (but that's OK, according to the GPL).

There's no point in treating the relationship between Eclipse and Kaffe
as something other than what it is.

> > > 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.

If you want to take what the GPL says out of context (like your "quote"
above), try this on for size:

  "You may not copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program.
   Any attempt will automatically terminate your rights under
   this License."

Taking what the GPL says out of context doesn't really mean anything,
but it sure sounds impressive.

Back to what you said:  the "work as a whole" language in the GPL would
matter if Eclipse were a part of Kaffe, or if Eclipse were a part of a
work based on Kaffe.  But Eclipse is not.

Since the only relationships between Eclipse and Kaffe are: they're
(or would be) aggregated together in Debian, and when Kaffe runs, it
(sometimes) processes Eclipse, and since the GPl specifically allows
these relationships to be unrestricted, that "work as a whole" language
is not an issue in this context.


Reply to: