Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
Debian adds in all of the debian-specific control files, including man pages. Even if you discount that, Debian reserves the right to modify Kaffe at will. > > 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? 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, That is the difference. Linux has an exemption and Kaffe does not. > 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. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
