Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
> > You and Brian keep on claiming that. Do you actually have anything
> > solid on which to base this assertion?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:56:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The GPL mentions whole works, and I have given my criteria of a whole
> work: Requires to run.
Both of these statements are true.
However, the GPL specifically allows certain kinds of "whole works",
and only places certain restrictions on certain kinds of "whole works"
and your criteria isn't a part of the GPL.
> The Debian Depends: relationship is also useful and mostly equivalent.
It's mostly equivalent to your criteria. It's useful in the context
of apt.
But that doesn't constitute a basis for your claims about the GPL.
> I have not seen any other criteria which matches what the GPL actually
> says.
Try the GPL faq.
> As I mentioned before, I am open to discussion on what the criteria
> should be, but it does have to match what the GPL says.
The only way you'll have text which means exactly what the GPL says
is to limit the text in question to the GPL.
Other than that, it's quite reasonable to talk about what the GPL
says in the context of specific works.
However, you haven't provided anything I recognize as a valid refutation
of the points I've been making. You've simply been quoting sentence
fragments, and pretending that they make sense in this context.
> > * Kaffe will happily install without Eclipse
> > * Eclipse will happily install, depending on any Java 2 runtime
>
> But there is only one Java 2 runtime in main that will work.
This is not a GPL issue.
This is not a DFSG issue, either.
> You seem to have missed it the three other times I mentioned it,
> but this discussion is about whether Eclipse goes in main, not whether
> it is distributable at all.
"Eclipse can't be distributed in main" is not a valid interpretation of
any of the GPL restrictions.
The GPL would either prohibit distribution of the work entirely, or it
would allow unlimited distribution of the work.
You seem to have the GPL confused with some kind of proprietary license.
--
Raul
Reply to: