[kaffe] Darwin license vs GPL

[Kiyo Inaba]

Hi Dalibor,

Thanks to clarify my question. But, still I'm wondering whether your
description fits to this situation or not.

Dalibor wrote:
>Kiyo Inaba wrote:
>> So, if the comment in darwin derived code is correct, at least 'I' can
>> not compile and link (in GPL terminology 'forming a work based on the
>> Program') kaffe with darwin headers. The person who never made any mod
>> nor distributed kaffe will get different situation, since the person
>> need not to accept kaffe's license (of course GPL).
>
>The special exception for major operating system components in section 3
>of GPLv2 lets you do that, as it takes such components like the kernel,
>compiler, etc. out of the set of complete sources for the work. GPLv3
>goes into a bit of more length on it under the 'System Libraries'
>definition.

Yes, there is a exception clause exists in GPLv2. But in this situation,
the code I found is 'independent' from Apple (that's what you suggest
in the private mail, and I have to say sorry to Apple about that), and
then this toolchain can not be thought (by my understanding) as 'the
major components of the operating system'. This is absolutely different
from compiling Kaffe (or any other GPL'ed code) against SunOS or Ultrix.
When I compiled Kaffe for Ultrix, I used the major components of the
operating system (this is clear that I used header files shipped with
Ultrix itself), but if I want to compile Kaffe for iPhone, I have to
get separately prepared header files which are not easily recognized
as 'the major components of the OS'. Since I don't have iPhone handy
(iPhone has never been sold in Japan, anyway), I may misunderstand the
situation.

Kiyo