Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry wrote: > > If I give you a CD with Eclipse and Kaffe on it, I have given you a > > whole work which will edit programs. You may not even know what Kaffe > > is, but if you don't have it, Eclipse is not going to run. That sure > > sounds like it makes up part of the whole which is an IDE. This > > relationship is well expressed by Debian dependencies. > > Under your intepretation all of debian must be GPLd as none of it will > run without the GPLd kernel. That makes GPL violate DFSG and non-free. > What a fascinating mess.
The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than once. > > Now, it is true that Eclipse will run with other JVMs. But if they > > are not on the CD, then it doesn't matter. The GPL cares about what > > it is distributed with, not about stuff it could be distributed with. > > And the only thing allowed on the CD is stuff in main, because this > > whole argument is over whether Eclipse can go into main. Not whether > > Eclipse is distributable at all. > > The other VMs are on that CD, because they are in main already. There are no JVM's on that CD that will run Eclipse. > > There are a few ways to fix this whole issue > > > > 1) The Kaffe hackers get the library exemption added to _all_ of > > Kaffe. > > Not even the FSF has such an exception for their interpreters (Bash, > Make, Less, ...) and that doesn't make their intepreters undistributable > along with non-GPLd data in Debian. Why should Kaffe need such an > exception for all of it? Because there are non-GPL equivalents for Bash and Less (and I don't think there are many programs that Depend: on Less). There may be GPL-incompatible programs that depend on Bash specific features, in which case bugs should be filed. I can't imagine there are that many. I don't know of any GPL-incompatible programs distributed by Debian that depend on Make during execution. At build time is a different issue. I am not claiming that the result of running Make on a makefile is necessarily derived from Make. > > 2) The gcj or sablevm hackers get Eclipse working. > > I too, would prefer to see sableVM hackers get their VM fixed instead of > raising fear, uncertainity and doubt about the legal status of using > and distributing Kaffe. And I would appreciate it if Kaffe hackers would stop complaining about sableVM. It is a grand distraction from the issues. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
