Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
- From: Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 07:36:48 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20050201073648.N17307@links.magenta.com>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:18:56PM -0500
- References: <E1CuT14-0002xC-SU@sledge.mossbank.org.uk> <email@example.com> <41FB948E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:18:56PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> You have made a very convincing argument that "required to install" is
> too broad. My criteria is "required to run".
If you're talking about the scope of copyright law, or the relevance of
the license granted by the GPL, you're talking about "required to copy".
If you're talking about the DFSG, you're not talking about a legal issue,
but a set of guidelines, and the scope is Debian, and adoption into
You might have some personal "require to run" criteria, for some context.
But please don't mistake that for a copyright issue.