On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > 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.
That last clause ", but Debian does not distribute those alternatives" was not a part of my argument. I don't think it's an accurate assessement what Debian does, either. For example, we distribute emacs, and we distribute GPL incompatible text files. For example, we distibute linux, and we distribute GPL incompatible executables. And we distribute a variety of other GPL programs which handle quite a wide variety of data -- some of which we distribute. > 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. Again, not a part of my argument, and not a statement I agree with. > Because of that, this is beyond mere aggregation, > and work Y must be made GPL-compatible or moved to contrib. Correct? No. > 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. I can think of numerous differences between Kaffe and Linux, but none seem relevant to this conversation. In any event, in my last message I was disagreeing with your reasoning, not your conclusions. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
