Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > 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.
> Debian-created man pages, or any other modifications of Kaffe, could
> somehow make Eclipse a derivative work of Kaffe? How?
Agh. I misread your post. No, Debian does not modify Eclipse to make
it a directly 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?
> > 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.
> The Linux syscall exemption is a red herring. It releases
> applications -- not collective works containing both.
Hmm. Reading the exemption more closely supports your contention. I
will have to think about this.
> Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is
> not subject to the GPL.
The key word is "by itself". There is no problem with Eclipse being
distributed alone. The problem is when it is distributed with Kaffe.
Kaffe's license cares about the company it keeps.