> > Section 2 is about the restrictions which come into play when you > > build a modified form of Kaffe, which is not the case for Eclipse. > > Eclipse involves no modifications of Kaffe.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:50:17PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote: > Debian modifies Kaffe and distributes Eclipse with it. If Debian did > not modify Kaffe, then this section would not be relevant. First: There is no such legal entity as "Debian" which is doing such things. "Debian" is a trademark of SPI, and there are people who use that trademark, but that's not the same thing. Second, when a volunteer who associates with the name "Debian" modifies Kaffe, he or she does not modify it to include Eclipse. So the distribution of Kaffe proceeds unhindered. Third, when a volunteer who associates with the name "Debian" distributes Eclipse, this is under the terms of the Eclipse license, and this does not in any way violate the Kaffe license. Of course, if someone modified Kaffe to incorporte Eclipse, that would be a problem. To my knowledge, no one has done so, no one plans to do so, and no one is seriously presenting this as an issue. In other words: even if your sentence were legally accurate (which it isn't, given the legal status of Debian), it would still be irrelevant. > > Once again, the only relations between Eclipse and Kaffe are "Eclipse > > is aggregated with Kaffe" and "Eclipse is run by Kaffe". > > And once again, you miss the point that Eclipse and Kaffe together > make a whole work. The make an aggregate work. However, this aggregate work is not the work which is made when Kaffe is modified. > > In particular, you can't impost restrictions from Section 2 on cases > > where Sections 0 and 1 have already granted permissions. Not unless you > > want to make distribution under the GPL void (see Section 4 for why that > > is a requirement). > > Section 0 says that this license only affects copying and distribution, > which is what is going on here. Section 0, when taken by itself (as you're doing here), only requires the inclusion of appropriate copyright notices. So we're satisfying that aspect of section 0. > Section 1 gives permissions for distributing unmodified versions. Yes. > I am talking about distributing modified versions of Kaffe (which > Debian does). And we're satisfying the conditions required for the distribution of those modified versions. Those modified versions of Kaffe do not include Eclipse. There is an aggregate work which is also being distributed which includes both Kaffe and Eclipse, but the GPL allows that. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
