Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry writes: > > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Walter Landry writes: > > > > > > > Not that special. His argument makes sense to me. If Kaffe is > > > > required for Eclipse to run, then it looks like a whole work to me. > > > > However, Kaffe is not the only JVM that can run Eclipse. But it is > > > > the only one in main. That is why Eclipse needs to stay in contrib. > > > > > > Can you elaborate? Its dependencies seem to be satisfiable using > > > main. Last time I read policy, that is sufficient to put it in main. > > > > As I understand it, Eclipse would require Kaffe to go into main. If > > Kaffe is not suitable for Eclipse, then Eclipse would require a > > non-free JVM to run. That puts Eclipse in contrib. > > Kaffe _is_ suitable for Eclipse.
That is what this whole discussion revolves around ... > Eclipse is not a derivative work of Kaffe, though, Correct > and the Eclipse package is not a composite or collective work that > contains Kaffe. The package, by itself, is not. Just like I can make a package that uses GNU readline that is not a composite or collective work. But when I make copies of a work under the GPL, the GPL cares about the company it keeps when the copies are distributed. If the GPL'd work is part of a greater whole, then the whole thing has to be distributable under the terms of GPL. > That Kaffe is GPLed has no bearing on Eclipse. > > The argument to the contrary would mean almost all of main would have > to be GPL-compatible. Even though Linux exempts programs that use > system calls from the GPL, it does not exempt programs that use other > Linux-specific interfaces, and almost all programs use such features > (from /proc, of none others). Without auditing an application, we > would have to presume the GPL applies to it. The exemption actually says NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". It doesn't say anything about "Linux-specific interfaces". Using the /proc system is quite normal. > Debian kernel-image binaries also seem to omit the license disclaimer > about system calls from /usr/share/doc/kernel-image-*/copyright. Does > this mean Debian wishes the full GPL to apply to its distribution of > the kernel? If the copyright file for kernel-images is incorrect, please file a bug. > > > How many GPL-incompatible packages exist that can only be compiled by > > > gcc or compilers outside of main? Why should those not be moved into > > > contrib because of that build dependency? > > > > gcc has a special clause in its license that exempts programs that > > have been compiled by gcc from being subject to the GPL. It looks > > like much, but not all, of Kaffe has a similar exemption. From the > > Debian copyright file, valist.m4 and libraries/javalib/kjc.jar seem > > like the problematic ones. > > Eclipse is in no way dependent on the m4 macros used to build Kaffe, If it is not dependent, then why is it in the package? > and clearly does not require the KJC support provided by kjc.jar. Ok. > Even if the "Kaffe GPL means you cannot run Eclipse on it" argument > has any merit, I do not see how those could be a problem. If there is no dependency on pure GPL code, then I don't think that there is a problem. However, Grzegorz claims that there are still a number of core classes that are pure GPL'd [1]. That would be a problem. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00601.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
