Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Raul Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.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 <email@example.com> 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.
Debian modifies Kaffe and distributes Eclipse with it. If Debian did
not modify Kaffe, then this section would not be relevant.
> Once again, the only relations between Eclipse and Kaffe are "Eclipse
> is aggregated with Kaffe" and "Eclipse is run by Kaffe".
And once again, you miss the point that Eclipse and Kaffe together
make a whole work.
> 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).
Section 0 says that this license only affects copying and
distribution, which is what is going on here. Section 1 gives
permissions for distributing unmodified versions. I am talking about
distributing modified versions of Kaffe (which Debian does).