Hi Andrew,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
I can live with this view (even though an argument could be made about
the fact that many VMs (I do not know specifically about Kaffe) internally
use bytecodes from the class library to handle internal data structures
[think of a just-in-time compiler written in J
[This is no longer particularly important]
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:37:49AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >Kaffe is essentially a filter that takes java
> >bytecode as input and emits program code on the fly (this is
> >technically incomplete, but effectively equivalent
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Kaffe is essentially a filter that takes java
bytecode as input and emits program code on the fly (this is
technically incomplete, but effectively equivalent for the sake of
this argument). The input to a filter cannot be a derivative work of
it; we don't *care* about the sta
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:40:59AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> The opinion of debian-legal would be highly appreciated by all involved in
> this
> long running thread of discussion about the implications of:
>
> 1- Kaffe being licensed under the GNU GPL.
> 2- Kaffe's class library being licens
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
It would have been nice if you had made the arguments of each side
clear, before attacking my position. The discussion has not taken
place on debian-legal, but on debian-java. I appreciate the way Gadek
presented both sides of the previuos argument.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
It would have been nice if you had made the arguments of each side
clear, before attacking my position. The discussion has not taken place
on debian-legal, but on debian-java. I appreciate the way Gadek
presented both sides of the previuos argument.
You have a good point, th
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 07:51:37PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> My first issue is with the subject line: Kaffe uses plain GPL, not some
> special 'Kaffe's GPL'. It should be FSF's GPL, if you'd want to
> attribute it someone special.
I read "Kaffe's (GPL and GPL incompatible Java software)", no
Hi Etienne,
let's have some non-lawyerish philosophical licensing discussion fun
again ;)
My first issue is with the subject line: Kaffe uses plain GPL, not some
special 'Kaffe's GPL'. It should be FSF's GPL, if you'd want to
attribute it someone special.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Hi Debian-legal
Hi Debian-legal, Egon and Dalibor,
The opinion of debian-legal would be highly appreciated by all involved in this
long running thread of discussion about the implications of:
1- Kaffe being licensed under the GNU GPL.
2- Kaffe's class library being licensed under the GNU GPL.
3- Differeing interp
9 matches
Mail list logo
