Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When I instruct my computer running the
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
> eclipse, the code fr
Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
> which are distributed with / part of Kaffe. There clearly are
> bindings provided there. The GNU Classpath package is GPL'd,
> right?
GNU classpath is GPL+linkin
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
pack
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about running; I'm talking about making a copy of
>> Eclipse and a copy of 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.
>
> Yo
The entirety of GPL section 2 applies only to "works based on the
Program". In context, this applies only to derivative works and
(copyrightable) collections (the GPL says "collective works", but this
is obviously a thinko) under copyright law. The combination of Kaffe
and Eclipse is neither of t
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'm not talking about running; I'm talking about making a copy of
Eclipse and a copy of 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.
You don't get a program made out of both any more than you get a
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 05:57:54PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Now, before you go off ranting about Kaffe's native libraries, please
> take a moment to let the fact sink in that while these native libraries
> are the result of Kaffe developers being a somewhat clever bunch at
> developing soft
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
>>> eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
>>> package and from dozens of others are loaded into memor
Oh yeah, the answer:
We just do. Because the grep developers don't mind, apparently. They
aren't going to sue us... they'd probably tell us to stop before they sued
us anyways. We are at no risk from this.
Kaffe developers: do you mind?
Of course not, read the classpath exception!
On Fri, 14 Ja
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
>> eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
>> package and from dozens of others are loaded into memory. The process
>> on my computer is mechanical, so we s
inline
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:16:41 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If there actually is something going wrong, I'd really like for someone
>> to spell out what it is in some fashion which addresses the above points.
>
> Everything you said ther
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there actually is something going wrong, I'd really like for someone
> to spell out what it is in some fashion which addresses the above points.
Everything you said there seems reasonable to me (at first glance).
It's fine for the Kaffe developers and
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Your email messages do not contain calls to GPLed functions, do they?
Depends on the message :)
But that's not the point. The point is that the mere existance of a
chunk of non GPL-compatible memory within a GPLd proces' memory does not
necessarily constitute a GPL in
On Fri, 2005-14-01 at 20:56 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> > I am. I'm not talking about the .deb file containing Eclipse. If you
> > think you can provide someone with the Eclipse IDE program without
> > providing a JVM, I invite you to try.
>
> You mean like Fed
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I am. I'm not talking about the .deb file containing Eclipse. If you
think you can provide someone with the Eclipse IDE program without
providing a JVM, I invite you to try.
You mean like Fedora? Eclipse 3 nicely compiled to native with gcj, yum,
and balzing fast, for
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you support this ass
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
>>> *itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
>>> or othe
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
>> *itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
>> or other "bindings", or whether it asks the user to tilt s
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
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
> *itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
> or other "bindings", or whether it asks the user to tilt switches on
> an array of light bulbs is irrelevant to th
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
>>>particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
>> Can you support this assertion? The
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you support this assertion? The program, including its libraries,
which the developer int
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
If you at least went on and read next paragraph of the FAQ from which
you took the above.
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, librar
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Yet, if you *package* this program together with a JVM, so that when
the user says "I want to build this package" or "I want to run this
package" the user gets your program with a specific JVM, then it's not
a mere aggregation, but these two are explicitely bound togeth
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
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 the GPL or whether they are some kind of implementatio
Grzegorz B. Prokopski, on 2005-01-13, 13:43, you wrote:
> "However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to
> other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the
> interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses
> through these bindings. So if these f
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 18:13 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
> > There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
> >
> > The *new* Eclipse packages th
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> 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 ex
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
> There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
>
> The *new* Eclipse packages that are being prepared now and which we've
> been discussing (I already sa
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, 2005-13-01 at 22:51 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> > Do you understand that a program being interpreted is effectively
> >> > linked to these facilities it uses thru these bindings?
> >>
> >> Yes. Which bindings does Eclipse use?
> >
> > I told you. Plenty. And if we're making Eclipse
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Putting it differently: if that was allowed, then why do we need glibc
> to be LGPLed, and not GPLed? After all the C language and its basic
> libraries are also standarized to great extent.
I can see no real reason.
> But having glibc purel
"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:
>> >> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> > No
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 22:02 +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-ru
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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
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:
> >> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that AR
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-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
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
"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.
>>
>> No, it is being interpreted by an interpreter that
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:28 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
> >> deriv
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:19:36 -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> But in our case you're using an implementation that also at the same
> time defines the interface (this if functional equivalent of header
> files). You cannot simply take a GPL implementation, compile ag
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> great amount of t
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
>> derived from any of them. The complete binary, including its
>> libraries, includ
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-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do docum
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.
>
> No, it is being interpreted by an interpreter that is covered by the
> GPL. Even the FSF admits that this do
"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:
>> >> I fa
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:
> >> I fail to see the relevance of this paragraph to the discussion
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:19 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > > Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
> > > when you build it.
> >
> > How many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does
"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
>> > you took the above.
>> >
>> > http://www.gnu.org/lice
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:11:22PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> > mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled p
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
> > when you build it.
>
> How many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does not
> form a derivative work of *any* implementation of the API?
M
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> [large discussion of C snipped out]
>>
>> >>In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class
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
> > you took the above.
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
> >
> > "However, when
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:11:22PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
> > mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
> > great amount of time and thought.
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [large discussion of C snipped out]
>
> >>In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
> >>contain references to other classes which the JVM i
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If it causes even one person to understand that the generation or
>> transportation of a copy is what matters, and not technical
>> workarounds, I'll consider it useful.
>
> If it causes even one person to examine the legal precedents and form
>
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[large discussion of C snipped out]
In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
contain references to other classes which the JVM is free to look for
anywhere it pleases. AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
> derived from any of them. The complete binary, including its
> libraries, included whichever one Debian shipped it with.
No, it's not a de
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
> in
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers mi
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
> in different ways. I'm not referring
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of buildi
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:08:19 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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 17:36:27 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip things with which I agree completely]
> Once again: linking is a detail. It's not something which copyright
> law makes any special allowances for. Depending on the circumstances
> linking might be analogous to types
> 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 02:13:58PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Wha
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:11:52 +0100, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
> > licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
>
> [cut noise about FSF]
One person's signal is another's
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
What laws and precedents? All the law and precedent that I can find
sug
Am Mittwoch, 12. Januar 2005 22:11 schrieb Dalibor Topic:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under
> > other licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
>
> [cut noise about FSF]
>
> > But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret th
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
[cut noise about FSF]
But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret the relationship between
Java bytecode and GPL code to be loose enough not to cr
[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
Grzegorz B. Prokopski debian.org> writes:
> Neither they agreed with yours, as you probably remember, but that's not
> the point. The point is, that, as you've mentioned yourself, there ARE
> non-GPLed JVMs (IKVM, gij, SableVM) that could be used to build Eclipse
> w/o breaching GPL.
The point is
[Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> However if nobody stands up and say clearly, that there IS a problem,
> that GPL and CPL/APL are NOT compatible, and cannot be linked togethe
On Wed, 2005-12-01 at 02:49 +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Grzegorz B. Prokopski debian.org> writes:
>
> > See http://sablevm.org/wiki/License_FAQ for details.
>
> Gadek, last time you've taken your claims to debian-legal, noone on
> debian-legal
> agreed with your interpretation of the GPL. Sor
76 matches
Mail list logo
