Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > > 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.

Ok.  One more time.  The license on Kaffe says that distributing Kaffe
with other things can be restricted.

> > > > 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.

You gave alternate heuristics.  I gave reasons why they won't work.
Please pay attention.

> > > "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.

Perhaps you should take some time and consider these things a little
more.  Otherwise, you are just wasting everyone's time.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu