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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> 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?

Debian adds in all of the debian-specific control files, including man
pages.  Even if you discount that, Debian reserves the right to modify
Kaffe at will.

> > 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,

That is the difference.  Linux has an exemption and Kaffe does not.

> 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.

Walter Landry

Reply to: