Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Raul Miller writes:
> > Walter Landry writes:
> > > GPL 2 uses a different term: "work as a whole". The different
> > > sections do not have to be related by copyright at all.
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:48:26PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > If the two works are not related by copyright, then they are merely
> > aggregated.
>
> I don't think it's always that simple.
>
> The "work as a whole" thing is a part of the requirements that come into
> play when someone modifies the program.
>
> Basically, when you modify the program, you're creating a new work,
> and the GPL requires that all parts of that new work are licensed
> appropriately.
Indeed. Upstream Eclipse is not a modified version of Kaffe. Has
Debian made any changes to Eclipse to make our package a modified
version of Kaffe?
> Maybe it would help to think of this as question of what's "inside"
> and what's "outside" the modified program.
>
> Things that are inside (libraries, modules, headers, etc.) need to be
> GPL compatible. This is where the OS exception comes in.
This a debian-legal FAQ. Debian is the OS, and cannot avail itself of
the OS exception.
> Things that are outside (independently created programs and data --
> things that aren't needed to make the modified GPLed work be complete)
> do not need to be GPL compatible. This is where the clauses about
> running the program and about mere aggregation come in.
To summarize you argument: Debian includes both GPL-incompatible work
X and GPLed work Y. Work X can be run on top of other programs than
work Y, but Debian does not distribute those alternatives. Work X
itself (in either source or binary form) is not a derivative of work
Y, but within Debian, work X can only be run on top of work Y, and we
ship both of them. Because of that, this is beyond mere aggregation,
and work Y must be made GPL-compatible or moved to contrib. Correct?
If so, what is the difference is between Y=Kaffe and Y=Linux? Linux
exempts syscall-using clients from being directly covered by the GPL,
but Kaffe has no direct copyright claim on pure java applications.
It is again a question of how to define "mere aggregation" in the
collective work known as Debian.
Michael Poole
Reply to: