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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

> > 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.

On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:50:17PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Debian modifies Kaffe and distributes Eclipse with it.  If Debian did
> not modify Kaffe, then this section would not be relevant.

First: There is no such legal entity as "Debian" which is doing such
things.  "Debian" is a trademark of SPI, and there are people who use
that trademark, but that's not the same thing.

Second, when a volunteer who associates with the name "Debian" modifies
Kaffe, he or she does not modify it to include Eclipse.  So the
distribution of Kaffe proceeds unhindered.

Third, when a volunteer who associates with the name "Debian" distributes
Eclipse, this is under the terms of the Eclipse license, and this does
not in any way violate the Kaffe license.

Of course, if someone modified Kaffe to incorporte Eclipse, that would be
a problem.  To my knowledge, no one has done so, no one plans to do so,
and no one is seriously presenting this as an issue.

In other words: even if your sentence were legally accurate (which it
isn't, given the legal status of Debian), it would still be irrelevant.

> > 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.

The make an aggregate work.  However, this aggregate work is not the
work which is made when Kaffe is modified.

> > 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 0, when taken by itself (as you're doing here), only requires
the inclusion of appropriate copyright notices.  So we're satisfying
that aspect of section 0.

> Section 1 gives permissions for distributing unmodified versions.


> I am talking about distributing modified versions of Kaffe (which
> Debian does).

And we're satisfying the conditions required for the distribution
of those modified versions.  Those modified versions of Kaffe do not
include Eclipse.

There is an aggregate work which is also being distributed which includes
both Kaffe and Eclipse, but the GPL allows that.


Reply to: