Raul Miller writes: > > Walter Landry writes: > > > GPL 2 uses a different term: "work as a whole". The different > > > sections do not have to be related by copyright at all. > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:48:26PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > If the two works are not related by copyright, then they are merely > > aggregated. > > I don't think it's always that simple. > > The "work as a whole" thing is a part of the requirements that come into > play when someone modifies the program. > > Basically, when you modify the program, you're creating a new work, > and the GPL requires that all parts of that new work are licensed > appropriately.
Indeed. Upstream Eclipse is not a modified version of Kaffe. Has Debian made any changes to Eclipse to make our package a modified version of Kaffe? > Maybe it would help to think of this as question of what's "inside" > and what's "outside" the modified program. > > Things that are inside (libraries, modules, headers, etc.) need to be > GPL compatible. This is where the OS exception comes in. This a debian-legal FAQ. Debian is the OS, and cannot avail itself of the OS exception. > Things that are outside (independently created programs and data -- > things that aren't needed to make the modified GPLed work be complete) > do not need to be GPL compatible. This is where the clauses about > running the program and about mere aggregation come in. To summarize you argument: Debian includes both GPL-incompatible work X and GPLed work Y. Work X can be run on top of other programs than work Y, but Debian does not distribute those alternatives. Work X itself (in either source or binary form) is not a derivative of work Y, but within Debian, work X can only be run on top of work Y, and we ship both of them. Because of that, this is beyond mere aggregation, and work Y must be made GPL-compatible or moved to contrib. Correct? If so, what is the difference is between Y=Kaffe and Y=Linux? Linux exempts syscall-using clients from being directly covered by the GPL, but Kaffe has no direct copyright claim on pure java applications. It is again a question of how to define "mere aggregation" in the collective work known as Debian. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
