[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:
> > > > Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is
> > > > not subject to the GPL.

> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > 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.

> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > I see no such problem.
> > 
> > Since you claim to, please cite the specific, relevant language from
> > the GPL that "cares about the company it keeps".  And, indicate why
> > those parts of the GPL are significant to the combination of Eclipse
> > + Kaffe.  [To me, "the company it keeps" sounds like the same topic as
> > "mere aggregation".]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:54:50PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> I have already noted that the paragraph after Section 2c is where this
> occurs.  It is even clarified in the next paragraph
> 
>   the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
>   derivative or collective works based on the Program.
> 
> Note the use of the word "collective".

Sure -- this phrase is necessary because in some cases building a program
creates a derivative work under copyright law and in other cases building
a program creates a collective work.

But you can't take that phrase in isolation -- you have to look at when
Section 2 is significant.

Section 2 is about the restrictions which come into play when you
build a modified form of Kaffe, which is not the case for Eclipse.
Eclipse involves no modifications of Kaffe.

Once again, the only relations between Eclipse and Kaffe are "Eclipse
is aggregated with Kaffe" and "Eclipse is run by Kaffe".

In particular, you can't impost restrictions from Section 2 on cases
where Sections 0 and 1 have already granted permissions.  Not unless you
want to make distribution under the GPL void (see Section 4 for why that
is a requirement).

-- 
Raul



Reply to: