On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But you can see that it's not mere aggregation, because they invoke
> each other when run.
Evidence is not proof.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:39:09PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types "apt-get
> install eclipse; eclipse" is a program incorporating a JVM and many
> libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
> distributing Kaffe -- the
> > Is this relevant to Eclipse? I was under the impression that Eclipse
> > was pure java -- that it did not use JNI at all.
> >
> > If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not
> > Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed
> > to work around t
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > But was Kaffe _extended_ to provide such bindings for Eclipse 3.0?
>
> This FAQ entry discusses 2 cases. One is when we have an interpreter,
> that basically goes over the pseudo-code and purely "interprets" it
> (an old B
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>
> "However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to
> other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the
...
> Do you understand tha
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
> than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
> side-by-side with the work it critiques.
Sure, and evidence isn't proof.
If it can be sh
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> > which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:
[Note: I don't know enough about Eclipse and Kaffe to make any comments
on that specific issue. Instead, I'm responding to some of the things
Michael has written.]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> You know, just because the FSF has claimed for many years that
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> What i understood from the replies it (among which this one, others
> may have been private), that it is OK to license the software GPL as
> long as the used APL libraries are part of the distribution on which
> it is installed, ri
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > What i understood from the replies it (among which this one, others may have
> > been private),
> > that it is OK to license the software GPL as long as the used APL libraries
> > are part of the
> > distribution on which it is i
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:04:47AM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> Is it "legal" to have (I am thinking Java here):
>
> - A GPL-ed program that uses
> a LPGL-ed libraries that uses
> a "Apache Public License"-ed library
>
> The be precise, i am considering packaging a GPL-ed tool that uses t
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:04:47AM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> Is it "legal" to have (I am thinking Java here):
>
> - A GPL-ed program that uses
> a LPGL-ed libraries that uses
> a "Apache Public License"-ed library
>
> The be precise, i am considering packaging a GPL-ed tool that uses
12 matches
Mail list logo
