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 licensed
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
[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 for
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 long as you
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...
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
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
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), not
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
allows
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
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
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't work.
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
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*
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
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
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
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 and/or GPLed JVMs is
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
Anyway: if thats true, that it will kill kaffe in debian, as we could
not use it with almost any programm, because in one way or another,
they all include apache licensed libs (- jakarta project).
Don't agree. ;) Even if this was true, it would be good enough
Hi!
Below is the mail that I sent yesterday to debian-java NOT putting Cc:
to d-legal as I thought the issue was really clear to me. After some
duscussion that began after my email (see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2003/debian-java-200310/msg00107.html
) it was requested to bring it on to
W licie 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 it.
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, there
Hi all!
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 package apparently(!) has been compiled
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?
A
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
