Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the >> GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have >> some odd version of Eclipse, but the standard releases have no such >> requirement. > > While most of what you said seemed perfectly reasonable, this does > not. > > Some distribution of Eclipse is encumbered by the GPL if it, that > distribution, includes a copy of a GPL'd work (and it is not mere > aggregation, which this certainly isn't). So shipping Eclipse+Kaffe > is not OK. Shipping Eclipse+otherJVM is fine.
Your definition of "include" appears to be a little broader than the one most of us use. > I do not think anyone will disagree with this. Can we now confine > this argument to whether a program distributed as a > package with Depends: jre | java-runtime contains a copy of a package > with Provides: java-runtime? > > I'm inclined to say no, that that is not the intended operating state, > merely an incidental of technically compatible packages -- and so even > if Eclipse had a Depends: some-non-kaffe-jvm | java-runtime and Kaffe > a Provides: java-runtime, there would be no conflict with the GPL here. You're starting to make sense. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
