Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>>> When I instruc
f Kaffe and putting them both on an end-user's
> system such that when I type "eclipse" I get a program made out of
> both.
So what? Eclipse is still only a Java program being interpreted by
Kaffe, which is perfectly within the limits set by the GPL.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the first place.
>
> On the other hand, it's also exactly why it's problematic for Debian
> to distribute an Eclipse which incorporates a copy of the GPL'd Kaffe.
Please start using a dictionary with the same definition of "include",
"incorporate" and similar words as everybody else's dictionaries use.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ason.
> But having glibc purely GPL just doesn't sound good, does it?
It sounds like it would make for a lot of arguing with FSF, nothing
else.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 21:56 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
>
> But Debian does, when it says:
> Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
>
> So the eclipse-platfo
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
&g
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:15 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If you at least went on and read next paragraph of the FAQ from which
>
derived from?
>
> You've got the causality backwards here. The program is linked to the
> libraries because it is a derivative of the libraries. Not the other
> way around.
>
> Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
> when you build it.
rson to examine the legal precedents and form
> his or her own judgement about whether the GPL means what it is often
> said to mean, I'll consider it useful.
I keep wondering, if the GPL is really supposed to mean all these
things which keep being claimed, why didn't the FSF wri
eferences to other classes which the JVM is free to look for
anywhere it pleases. AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API
as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation
of said interface.
This whole discussion is something between ridiculous and hilarious,
definite
12 matches
Mail list logo
