Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Suppose I have a program Foo which uses either GNU readline. I can
> > compile Foo against GNU readline (but not link it), and distribute the
> > result. I can also distribute GNU readline separately. But I can not
> > distribut
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>(Incidentally, is not gjc in main? It seems a likely candidate to
>>substitute for Kaffe if you wish for another GPL-free way to execute
>>Eclipse.)
>
> I don't think gjc can handle Eclipse. If it can, why not Sable-VM or
>
Walter Landry wrote:
> Suppose I have a program Foo which uses either GNU readline. I can
> compile Foo against GNU readline (but not link it), and distribute the
> result. I can also distribute GNU readline separately. But I can not
> distribute foo and GNU readline together. How is this diffe
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:31:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:18:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > Andrew Suffield writes:
> >
> > > > About the only thing I've seen that will do (a) is static linking in
> > > > an ELF object, or an
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
>> > > > We covered all this earlier, and there was no good explanation of why
>> > > > Eclipse + Kaffe is bad but other GPL-incompatible packages + GPLed
>> > > > Essential: yes packages are okay. For example: does any non-GPL
>
Walter Landry writes:
> > > > We covered all this earlier, and there was no good explanation of why
> > > > Eclipse + Kaffe is bad but other GPL-incompatible packages + GPLed
> > > > Essential: yes packages are okay. For example: does any non-GPL
> > > > package that calls out (using only cross-p
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:18:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > > About the only thing I've seen that will do (a) is static linking in
> > > an ELF object, or anything comparable. (b) is the one that we normally
> > > deal with in Debian.
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > I meant linking as a shorthand for "incorporated as a section of a
> > whole work". Although Kaffe is actually objecting to being
> > distributed while "linked" to Eclipse.
>
> My point is that it has no clear basis for that
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:18:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:14:32PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > The rest of your post is either intentionally or incompetently
> > > misleading, since Java's idea of binary compatibility means that
Walter Landry writes:
> I meant linking as a shorthand for "incorporated as a section of a
> whole work". Although Kaffe is actually objecting to being
> distributed while "linked" to Eclipse.
My point is that it has no clear basis for that objection without
violating DFSG #9.
> I am talking ab
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry writes:
> > >
> > > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Walter Landry writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
Walter Landry writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Walter Landry writes:
> >
> > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Walter Landry writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As has been explained on debian-legal, t
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry writes:
> > >
> > > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose
> > > > > w
Walter Landry wrote:
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Walter Landry writes:
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose
would mean that the GPL is a non-DFSG-free license.
Where was that? I have seen no such convincing exp
Walter Landry wrote:
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose
would mean that the GPL is a non-DFSG-free license.
Where was that? I have seen no such convincing explanation.
public class HelloWorld {
public static void
Walter Landry writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Walter Landry writes:
> >
> > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose
> > > > would mean that the GPL is a non-DFSG-free license.
> > >
>
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:14:32PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > The rest of your post is either intentionally or incompetently
> > misleading, since Java's idea of binary compatibility means that a
> > compiled Eclipse package does not contain any copyrightable portion
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose
> > > would mean that the GPL is a non-DFSG-free license.
> >
> > Where was that? I have seen no such
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:14:32PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> The rest of your post is either intentionally or incompetently
> misleading, since Java's idea of binary compatibility means that a
> compiled Eclipse package does not contain any copyrightable portion of
> the class libraries that pr
Etienne Gagnon writes:
> In other words:
>
>kaffe class-library \
> +--> jikes --> eclipse binary code
>eclipse source code /
>
> Now, this output is, as far as I can tell, a derivative of the input,
> which contains GPL (no linking exception) work.
SableVM devel
Dear Michael,
First, this will be my last message on this thread. I have expressed, I
think, a quite clear opinion. You may debate its merit or even discard
it if you wish. My goal was not to dictate the conduct of any body, but
to clarify the understanding of the GPL I got during a long priv
Walter Landry writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose
> > would mean that the GPL is a non-DFSG-free license.
>
> Where was that? I have seen no such convincing explanation.
Eclipse compiled against Kaffe
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nEtienne Gagnon writes:
>
> > Now, the question one should answer is the following:
> >
> > If, the Debian system includes a copy of Eclipse that is intended to
> > run on Kaffe, can we claim that both are "merely aggregated"? The
> > answer is no.
> >
nEtienne Gagnon writes:
> Now, the question one should answer is the following:
>
> If, the Debian system includes a copy of Eclipse that is intended to
> run on Kaffe, can we claim that both are "merely aggregated"? The
> answer is no.
>
> There's quite some evidence of this. Can you install (
24 matches
Mail list logo
