"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe > To: Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-legal@lists.debian.org > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:35:31 -0800 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:16:53 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [quoting Michael Poole] >> > 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. > > A distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the GPL if it is a > derivative work of the GPL, such as by cut-and-paste of a piece of GPL > code in excess of "de minimis" standards. The GPL simply doesn't > address the "needs GPL code to work properly" case; consider Makefiles > that only work with GNU make.
That's a nice example. > [snip] >> 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. > > Copies are OK, derivative works aren't. Eclipse+Kaffe isn't a > derivative work and doesn't create one during execution either. Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking about any work that in whole or in part contains the Program. Eclipse+Kaffe contains Kaffe, GPL 2 then exempts mere aggregation -- which this is not. It also exempts separate sections *when distributed separately* -- and explicitly covers them when the Program is distributed as a whole. That feels like it's written to address this particular case -- or at least a tarball containing Kaffe and Eclipse. This is similar enough to count, it's just a funny compression scheme. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
