Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Brian repeatedly asserts that the relationship between Eclipse and Kaffe
is not "mere aggregation", but declines to say what that relationship is.
To my knowledge, the only relation between Eclipse and Kaffe other than
"mere aggregation" is that Kaffe runs Eclipse. But the GPL also states
that that is unrestricted.
More generally, however, mere aggregation is the ONLY distinction between
putting Eclipse in main and putting Eclipse in contrib or non-free.
In both cases, there will be users who use Kaffe to run Eclipse.
If there's some other kind of relationship between Eclipse and Kaffe,
which is a problem in the context of the GPL, then we would have to
choose between distributing Eclipse and distributing Kaffe.
But near as I can tell, everyone agrees that we can distribute
both Eclipse and Kaffe -- the only question is the one about
aggregation.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:03:44AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Not a derivative work: a copy. Debian distributes copies of Kaffe,
> and is considering distributing them with copies of Eclipse. That's
> only OK if it's not "mere aggregation". When Kaffe is the only reason
> Eclipse can go in main, I don't think we're talking about mere
> aggregation again.
Here, Brian confuses our free software guidelines with the GPL.
The guidelines do not constitute license restrictions.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:07:16AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> It's just a work containing copies of Kaffe and (soon) Eclipse in
> closer proximity than aggregation.
There's no such thing. Or, if there is, please explain how you determine
these quantities.
I'm asserting that the distinction between "mere aggregation" and "a
work based on the program" is not one of proximity.
> It's not about a derivative work or ownership of an API. It's just
> about distributing copies of Kaffe with copies of non-GPL'd works.
Unless you can show some relationship which is significant in the
context of the GPL, I assert that you're talking about mere
aggregation.
If you can show that kind of relationship, I assert we can't distribute
Eclipse in contrib or non-free.
> > The distinction between main and not-main is purely a DFSG issue. The GPL
> > doesn't care about this distinction at all.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:06:33AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Not true. The GPL prohibits distributing bundled copies of GPL'd and
> GPL-incompatible works, if they are more tightly coupled than mere
> aggregation.
I'm going to classify this as a half-truth.
What you've not shown is what clause in the GPL -- other than the mere
aggregation clause -- which is relevant in this context.
> That is, the Debian OS is a work. It contains copies of
> Kaffe and Eclipse. They are interdependent, more closely related
> than, say, Eclipse and isync. Thus, they must both be distributed
> under the terms of the GPL.
The interdependence is a runtime relationship. There is no body of
copyrighted work in Eclipse which is derived from Kaffe.
> Eclipse will also be distributed on CDs with Kaffe, such that the CDs
> install an OS with Eclipse and Kaffe set up together. Eclipse will be
> part of the Debian OS, which is a work containing a copy of Kaffe.
> That fits the GPL's definition in section 2, so Eclipse has to be
> under a GPL-compatible license.
Section 2 consists of a list of conditions which have to be satisfied
when you modify Kaffe.
For section 2 to be relevant, you have to show that eclipse is a part
of the modified Kaffe.
You've no grounds for claiming Debian is a part of the modified Kaffe.
> > 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.
>
> There is another relationship: the artisans creating Debian made a
> creative choice not to put Eclipse in until Kaffe satisfied certain
> properties. That wouldn't happen in a case of mere aggregation.
Actually, that's typical of what happens with mere aggregation: Files are
aggregated because someone decided to store them together. That decision
is, as a general rule, based on certain properties of those files.
--
Raul
Reply to: