E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
On Saturday 01 November 2003 20:08, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
The big question seems to come done to:
"What part of Java is library and what part is language?"
It seems to me that at least the syntax *and* java.lang *is* the
language...
On Saturday 01 November 2003 20:08, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
> > The big question seems to come done to:
> >
> > "What part of Java is library and what part is language?"
> >
> > It seems to me that at least the syntax *and* java.lang *is* the
> > language... Thus as l
Salut Etienne,
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
GPL says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. ...
...
As running is clearly not covered under GPL, your argument doesn't work.
Modification *IS* cove
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
The big question seems to come done to:
"What part of Java is library and what part is language?"
It seems to me that at least the syntax *and* java.lang *is* the language...
Thus as long as you don't use anything else then java.lang classes, you can
use kaffe to r
On Saturday 01 November 2003 18:41, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > GPL says:
> > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. ...
>
> > As running is clearly not covered under GPL, your argument doesn
Dalibor Topic wrote:
GPL says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. ...
...
As running is clearly not covered under GPL, your argument doesn't work.
Modification *IS* covered by the GPL. (FYI, it's not my argumen
Hi Etienne,
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Hi Arnaud,
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Anyway, we're switching kaffe's class library over to GNU Classpath,
which is GPL + linking exception, and that should make the people who
support FSFs interpretation happy, too, as GNU Classpath explicitely
allows linking to
Hi Arnaud,
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Anyway, we're switching kaffe's class library over to GNU Classpath,
which is GPL + linking exception, and that should make the people who
support FSFs interpretation happy, too, as GNU Classpath explicitely
allows linking to it.
This won't necessarily change an
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:32:08 +0100
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, we're switching kaffe's class library over to GNU Classpath,
> which is GPL + linking exception, and that should make the people who
> support FSFs interpretation happy, too, as GNU Classpath explicitely
> all
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:51:23AM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>
> PS: I hope d-l people won't mind us Cc:ing them from now on. We surely
> don't want to make it another IANAL-discussion which brigns nothing
> so we need some help. Please Cc:d-l when it makes sense.
>
Last I checked, the
W liście z czw, 30-10-2003, godz. 05:32, Dalibor Topic pisze:
> Anyway, we're switching kaffe's class library over to GNU Classpath,
> which is GPL + linking exception, and that should make the people who
> support FSFs interpretation happy, too, as GNU Classpath explicitely
> allows linking to
Hi,
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 11:32, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Jan Schulz wrote:
> > * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >
> >>* figure out how you want to interpret the GPL in this case. The rest
> >>follows from that.
> >>
> >>>Problems not touched: *execution* of GPL-incompatible code using
> >>> GPLed libs an
Jan Schulz wrote:
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
* figure out how you want to interpret the GPL in this case. The rest
follows from that.
Problems not touched: *execution* of GPL-incompatible code using
GPLed libs and/or GPLed JVMs is beyond the scope of this message.
Could you please
Dalibor Topic wrote:
B) me (and I guess a few others who are not lawyers, either):
As GPL only really talks about derived works, in order to decide if the
GPL applies to a work we must try to see if the new work is derived from
a GPLd work, or not.
FWIW, this is also my POV after reading some of
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>* figure out how you want to interpret the GPL in this case. The rest
>follows from that.
>>Problems not touched: *execution* of GPL-incompatible code using
>> GPLed libs and/or GPLed JVMs is beyond the scope of this message.
Could you please take this two
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Hi all!
Hi Grzegorz,
Summary: Usage of GPLed libs to compile GPL-incompatible code makes
the result *undistributable*. [0]
Affected java packages: Every package that contains GPL-incompatible
software which was *compiled* using GPLed libs.
Examples: current Ant p
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Summary: Usage of GPLed libs to compile GPL-incompatible code makes
> the result *undistributable*. [0]
Does it? AFAIK using gcc (GPL licensed) to compile _any_ software does
not make that software GPL. So, why would kaffe be a special case?
17 matches
Mail list logo
