Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-13 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-13 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-13 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-13 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"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.

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-13 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-13 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-13 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"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

Re: Illustrating JVM bindings

2005-01-13 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > These facilities include class loading, class instantiation, > synchronization, garbage collection (ie. you can trigger GC from within > your program), reflection (ie. you can ask VM "what are methods that > this class have?"). Those are featu

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-14 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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 irrelevan

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-14 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-14 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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,

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-14 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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

Re: Illustrating JVM bindings

2005-01-14 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your implementation creates a huge loophole in GPL, that I do not > believe is there. Let's continue your way of seeing "interepter > features" and see what would be the consequences. > > An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible o

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-14 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-14 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-14 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
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,

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

2005-01-15 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>>> Dalibor Topic <