Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
There's a third exception. The implicit exception "if you're not doing something which requires permission from us in the first place, then we can't prevent you from doing it". I think people are arguing that it falls under the third exception, not the other two.
A copy of a creative work (Kaffe) is being distributed. That this doesn't require permission from the copyright holder is unlikely.
But the *difference* between distributing Kaffe alone and distributing it with something else involves nothing that requires permission from the copyright owner.
Distributing it *at all* requires permission from the copyright owner. If the copyright owner is willing to grant permission to distribute, conditional on it not being distributed alongside eclipse, windows, or the man in the moon, that is their right.
Whether licensing under the GPL withholds permission to distribute the work alongside GPL-incompatible works that the work could conceivably execute or not is debatable. Whether the GPL, as a copyright license, has the right to do so is not.
-- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
