Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> The license on Kaffe does not in any way inhibit distribution of >> copies of Eclipse. I don't believe for a second that Eclipse is >> derivative of any particular JVM. But Eclipse+Kaffe does contain a >> copy of Kaffe. The GPL grants permission for distribution of copies >> of Kaffe. It does this in its section 2. >> GPL 2b says that if distributing a combined work which contains a >> copy >> of a GPL'd work, then the entire result must be under the terms of the >> GPL. This is that case exactly. > > Something that worries me about this interpretation (not to suggest > that it's incorrect; I can see no fault in the logic, except perhaps > that Kaffe is not modified when it is put on the same CD as Eclipse, > and thus may not form a 'work based on the program', as per section 2) > is that in an operating system distribution, for each possible joining > relationship (for example Java byte code <-> JVM) there is a number of > license combinations equal the the product of the number of works on > each side of the relationship, and if even one of these combinations > is of GPL and [GPL-incompatible-but-Free], the whole distribution > loses permission to distribute the GPLed code.
I think most of those are just aggregation on a medium of distribution. Only the tree of dependencies has to be checked. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
