Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 am using the plain English meaning: if I ship you a CD with Eclipse and Kaffe so that all you have to do is double-click some icon and it runs, that is a distribution of Eclipse including Kaffe. >> 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. Merely because I'm reaching a conclusion which you find palatable? This reasoning is grounded on the same axioms and rules I've been using all along. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
