Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is > > > not subject to the GPL. > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > > The key word is "by itself". There is no problem with Eclipse being > > distributed alone. The problem is when it is distributed with Kaffe. > > Kaffe's license cares about the company it keeps. > > I see no such problem. > > Since you claim to, please cite the specific, relevant language from > the GPL that "cares about the company it keeps". And, indicate why > those parts of the GPL are significant to the combination of Eclipse > + Kaffe. [To me, "the company it keeps" sounds like the same topic as > "mere aggregation".]
I have already noted that the paragraph after Section 2c is where this occurs. It is even clarified in the next paragraph the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. Note the use of the word "collective". Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
