Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > Not that special. His argument makes sense to me. If Kaffe is
> > required for Eclipse to run, then it looks like a whole work to me.
> > However, Kaffe is not the only JVM that can run Eclipse. But it is
> > the only one in
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
> tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
> weeks, for which I thank all involved. Comments are in square brackets.
>
> This assumes that DFSG #8
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
>>>work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
>>>modifications and derived works had to be d
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
MÃns RullgÃrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So what? Eclipse is still only a Java program being interpreted by
Kaffe, which is perfectly within the limits set by the GPL.
Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
which are distributed with / part
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The user has T installed, and types "apt-get install noteclipse". Since
Does this also answer the case of Debian CDs?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>> >
>> >> But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types "apt-get
>> >> install eclipse; eclipse" is a program incorporating a
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> First, there's a separation exception:
>>
>> If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
>> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
>> works in themse
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
Walter Landry writes:
> Not that special. His argument makes sense to me. If Kaffe is
> required for Eclipse to run, then it looks like a whole work to me.
> However, Kaffe is not the only JVM that can run Eclipse. But it is
> the only one in main. That is why Eclipse needs to stay in contrib.
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
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Sniffen wrote:
> >
> >Ignore the GPL FAQ for a minute and look at the GPL's 2b:
> >
> >b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> >whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> >part thereof,
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:12:56 +, Andrew Suffield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Some of those python scripts may be derivatives of GNU readline. Most
> are probably not. Those that are must be licensed under the GPL. The
> rest do not have to be. All this interpreter crud in between is
> *i
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
>>>work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
>>>modifications and derived works had to be d
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:59:17 +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Change "the name of the package will have to be changed" to "the
> > Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
> > trademarks" and I think it's completely unobjectio
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. [...]
Here's my attempt at comments. Thanks for drafting this, but
I'm worried that it tries to restrict future maintainers in exchange
for permissions that I'm not sure are needed anyw
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 g
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:40:04PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> For quite a few GPL software projects, this is the only way to get
> changes into upstream. Does this make the software non-free? I don't
> think so, even though the process is just legally effective variant of
> the asymmetric lic
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:12:56 +, Andrew Suffield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Some of those python scripts may be derivatives of GNU readline. Most
> are probably not. Those that are must be licensed under the GPL. The
> rest do not have to be. All this interpreter crud in between is
> *i
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Change "the name of the package will have to be changed" to "the
Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
trademarks" and I think it's completely unobjectionable.
Without commenting on whether this change would be OK or not, can you
see any ci
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
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:59:17 +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Change "the name of the package will have to be changed" to "the
> > Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
> > trademarks" and I think it's completely unobjectio
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 Sniffen wrote:
>
>Ignore the GPL FAQ for a minute and look at the GPL's 2b:
>
>b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>
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
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
I would then just take the GPLed code of this GC library, GPLed code
of readline, cut out the pieces I need, integrate into my interepreter
and call it "interepter features". Thus, according to you, my
GPL-incompatible program would be able to use GPLed code thanks
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:42:44PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible or even
> > closed-source one. I'd love to use this conservative garbage collector
> > library, but it's under GPL, so I cannot. I'd also love to use
> > libreadline, bu
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. [...]
Here's my attempt at comments. Thanks for drafting this, but
I'm worried that it tries to restrict future maintainers in exchange
for permissions that I'm not sure are needed anyw
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 writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> >> 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 dist
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
"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
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>> Software under the BSD license is free. Software that is sometimes under
>> one and sometimes under another ought to still be free.
>
> It is. But software under a "you get GPL-like rights to my parts of
> this thing we're building together, and I get BSD-like rights to
El sáb, 08-01-2005 a las 23:28 +0100, Bas Zoetekouw escribió:
> Hi!
>
> Just to clarify for all those watching this bug, this is he license
> we're talking about:
>
> > Digium has licensed the music included with
> > the Asterisk distribution From FreePlayMusic
> > for use and distribution with A
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> First, there's a separation exception:
>
> If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
> works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not ap
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking
>> about any work that in whole or in part contains the Program.
>> Eclipse+Kaffe
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> 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 Kaf
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
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
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 -- t
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:40:04PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> For quite a few GPL software projects, this is the only way to get
> changes into upstream. Does this make the software non-free? I don't
> think so, even though the process is just legally effective variant of
> the asymmetric lic
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
> Your email messages do not contain calls to GPLed functions, do they?
Eclipse does not in itself contain calls to GPLed functions.
The contrast you attempt sounds broken.
Michael Poole
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
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Change "the name of the package will have to be changed" to "the
Mozilla Foundation reserves the right to withdraw license to its
trademarks" and I think it's completely unobjectionable.
Without commenting on whether this change would be OK or not, can you
see any circum
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
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 Thu, 2005-13-01 at 23:42 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> "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
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 Sniffen wrote:
>
>Ignore the GPL FAQ for a minute and look at the GPL's 2b:
>
>b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>
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
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How does providing extra freedoms to certain recipients decrease the
>> freeness of a piece of software? Software under the GPL is free.
>
> It doesn't. Requiring that others release more freedom in a
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
I would then just take the GPLed code of this GC library, GPLed code
of readline, cut out the pieces I need, integrate into my interepreter
and call it "interepter features". Thus, according to you, my
GPL-incompatible program would be able to use GPLed code thanks to
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:42:44PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible or even
> > closed-source one. I'd love to use this conservative garbage collector
> > library, but it's under GPL, so I cannot. I'd also love to use
> > libreadline, bu
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
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> >> 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 dist
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
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 suppor
"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
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
>> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
>> software. They aren't on a plane with the original aut
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>> Software under the BSD license is free. Software that is sometimes under
>> one and sometimes under another ought to still be free.
>
> It is. But software under a "you get GPL-like rights to my parts of
> this thing we're building together, and I get BSD-like rights to
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
El sÃb, 08-01-2005 a las 23:28 +0100, Bas Zoetekouw escribiÃ:
> Hi!
>
> Just to clarify for all those watching this bug, this is he license
> we're talking about:
>
> > Digium has licensed the music included with
> > the Asterisk distribution From FreePlayMusic
> > for use and distribution with A
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> First, there's a separation exception:
>
> If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
> works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not ap
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking
>> about any work that in whole or in part contains the Program.
>> Eclipse+Kaffe
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> 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 Kaf
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
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 -- t
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
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
> Your email messages do not contain calls to GPLed functions, do they?
Eclipse does not in itself contain calls to GPLed functions.
The contrast you attempt sounds broken.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
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
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> 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 idea is that we'll be distributing the
>
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
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
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 23:42 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> "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
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How does providing extra freedoms to certain recipients decrease the
>> freeness of a piece of software? Software under the GPL is free.
>
> It doesn't. Requiring that others release more freedom in a
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
> software. They aren't on a plane with the original author. This is a
> root problem similar to that of t
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
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 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
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
>> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
>> software. They aren't on a plane with the original aut
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 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 develop
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
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> 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 idea is that we'll be distributing the
>
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, l
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
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:17:06AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > and that legal action can
> > not occur until 1 year after the piece of code has entered the program
>
> "No Recipient will bring a legal action under this License more than one year
> after the cause of action arose." That says t
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
> software. They aren't on a plane with the original author. This is a
> root problem similar to that of t
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 tog
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 02:34:24PM +0200, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> 3.3 If the Program is distributed in object code form, then a
> prominent notice must be included in the code itself as well as in
> any related documentation, stating that the source code for the
> Program is available from t
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 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
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:45:59AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> This would be worrying (when CA becomes unreachable), but section 11.3
> addresses that:
>
> > 11.3 If it is impossible for Recipient to comply with any of the terms of
> > this License
> > with respect to some or all of the Program
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:08:09AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 02:34:24PM +0200, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> > Computer Associates released Ingres under this license:
> >
> > http://opensource.ca.com/projects/ingres/
> > http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Collateral.asp?CID=613
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:17:06AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:32:20PM +, Brett Parker wrote:
> > Looks reasonable to me, the only thing that caught my eye was that
> > there's no choice of venue for legal action
>
> Choice of venue is widely (not quite unanimously
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
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
