Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Michael Poole <email@example.com> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > Michael Poole <email@example.com> 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.
> > >
> > > 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".]
> > 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".
> Under copyright law, collective works include those that the GPL
> refers to as "mere aggregation." How do you propose we distinguish
> between what the GPL considers mere aggregation and others?
When one work requires the other in order to function, then you have
gotten past mere aggregation. So Emacs is not required for Kaffe to
work, or vice versa. Putting them on the same medium is mere