Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
> > 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.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:55:30PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> You can replace "Debian" with "SPI" if it makes you feel better. I
> feel that you are quibbling about unimportant matters.
I'll agree that this is a tangential point.
However, SPI has not modified Kaffe, and has no plans for doing so.
> > 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.
> The volunteers are agents of Debian.
Agent:
One authorized to represent and to act on behalf of another person
(called the principal). Unlike an employee, who merely works for
a principal, an agent works in the place of a principal. The main
difference between an agent and an employee is that the agent may bind
his or her principal by contract, if within the scope of authority,
whereas an employee may not unless given express authorization. (See
law of agency, principal)
> > The make an aggregate work. However, this aggregate work is not the
> > work which is made when Kaffe is modified.
>
> Debian distributes a modified Kaffe and Eclipse together. Section 2
> of the GPL does not care whether the modifications made to Kaffe are
> for making Eclipse work better or not.
False.
Section 2 specifically says "The source code for a work means the
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
No one believes that Eclipse is a part of the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to Kaffe.
> > There is an aggregate work which is also being distributed which includes
> > both Kaffe and Eclipse, but the GPL allows that.
>
> They are not an aggregate work, they are a whole work.
That's easy to assert.
What you are unable to do is provide any meaningful explanation of why
your assertion is correct.
--
Raul
Reply to: