Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > nEtienne Gagnon writes: > > > Now, the question one should answer is the following: > > > > If, the Debian system includes a copy of Eclipse that is intended to > > run on Kaffe, can we claim that both are "merely aggregated"? The > > answer is no. > > > > There's quite some evidence of this. Can you install (normally) the > > Eclipse package and run it without Kaffe, on your Debian system (as > > defined above: main, 100% free software)? No. > > This is irrelevant: The law does not care whether anyone restricts > himself to what Debian restricts itself to. The SC also recognizes > that many users will use non-Debian software. For example, from the > end of SC 5: "although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we > support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our > bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software > packages." That infrastructure includes identifying possible > dependencies on non-free software that may satisfy the dependency of > free software. > > As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose > would mean that the GPL is a non-DFSG-free license.
Where was that? I have seen no such convincing explanation. > The rest of your post is either intentionally or incompetently > misleading, since Java's idea of binary compatibility means that a > compiled Eclipse package does not contain any copyrightable portion of > the class libraries that provide declarations to the compiler. That > is what determines whether the binary package is a derivative work of > the class library package. > > Please stop turning debian-legal into a pissing contest. Is SableVM > so technically inferior that it must compete based on faulty political > arguments rather than technical merit? Once upon a time, there was a > community known as the free software community, and it held as its > goal the production of high-quality software rather than bickering > over which free software license was better. You must be involved with some other free software community. People have bickered over licenses since the beginning. > sablevm simply does not provide the java2-runtime virtual package that > Eclipse otherwise requires. Is that all this is about? Kaffe will > deliver Eclipse compatibility before SableVM, therefore SableVM must > prevent Debian from delivering popular software that works with Kaffe? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
