Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
> > Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic,
> > Eclipse is not a part of Kaffe.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:56:34PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> You missed the part about Eclipse requiring Kaffe to run.
The license on Eclipse doesn't make an issue of this.
The license on Kaffe explicitly says that running Kaffe is not restricted.
So you have no plausible reason for believing that this matters.
> > > If you have a better heuristic, I am open to discussion.
> >
> > "Requires to build".
>
> I have serious doubts that only the header files would become part of
> the complete work.
Irrelevant, until you show some reason for this to matter in
the specific case of Eclipse and Kaffe.
> > "Incorporates content from".
>
> That would be an ordinary derived work. As I mentioned, the GPL goes
> beyond derived works.
Irrelevant, until you show some reason for this to matter in
the specific case of Eclipse and Kaffe.
> > "Designed as part of".
>
> So if a GPL'd program can use GNU TLS or OpenSSL, we don't have to
> actually ship GNU TLS? Are you actually proposing that?
I'm not discussing GNU TLS at the moment. I've not studied that issue.
But I should note that I'm not claiming that any of these criteria should
stand by themselves.
> I think that if we can agree on what a useful criteria is, then the
> rest of the discussion melts away.
Ok, if we agree to avoid discussing how the issues relate to the license
itself, but have some alternate agreement we hold in its place, we would
be holding a different discussion. I don't disagree with this concept,
I just think it's irrelevant.
--
Raul
Reply to: