| [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #11677] |
Tue, 23 July 2002 13:04  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: dominic.nospam.com
Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native version of
eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the binaries where
does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts of
applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of the
licensing terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #14481 is a reply to message #14421] |
Wed, 31 July 2002 11:50  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: dominic.nospam.com
This is very funny ... seriously this made me laugh ! If i do not get
anything back from the lawyers in a week or so [i am not holding my breath]
i will start a new thread under eclipse.tools. Someone plz fix this
newsgroup mess.
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ai8516$9ik$1@rogue.oti.com...
> You can ask anything you like. The problem is that nobody here knows the
> answers. ;-)
>
> Bob
>
> "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ai40vt$gkr$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Forgive me but i think this *is* the right place to ask such questions
> until
> > a license specific group is created. If however this sort of question is
> at
> > all not advisable to ask then it's definitely not the right place !
> >
> > p.s.
> > plz feel free to add IANAL disclaimers as you see fit. I obviously need
> the
> > opinion of a copetent lawyer utltimately if i ever start doing
something.
> >
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > news:ahps17$9ha$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > This isn't the right place to ask the question. In fact, before asking
> it
> > > you might want to review the information available at
> > > http://eclipse.org/legal/main.html. If you still aren't satisfied,
> there's
> > a
> > > mechanism to ask the lawyers directly. (Don't hold your breath for an
> > > answer. ;-)
> > >
> > > The reason you haven't seen people discussing this issue because most
> > people
> > > don't think there is an issue.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ahmf2a$cj0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > I am not arguing it would be different i am just asking the question
> > from
> > > > different angles. The major question is since the resulting app
> > > > needs/depends on a runtime library are you required to also provide
> the
> > > > source code for these ? Instantiation did a demo of their java to
> native
> > > > compiler on one of eclipse samples. But so far i have not seen
people
> > > > discussing this isue.
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ahl225$kmh$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > Why would it be any different than compiled in any other way?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:ahk0o3$4kp$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > > Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native
> > > version
> > > > of
> > > > > > eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the
> binaries
> > > > where
> > > > > > does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts
> of
> > > > > > applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of
> the
> > > > > > licensing terms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #569931 is a reply to message #11677] |
Tue, 23 July 2002 22:44 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Why would it be any different than compiled in any other way?
Bob
"dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ahk0o3$4kp$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native version of
> eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the binaries where
> does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts of
> applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of the
> licensing terms.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #570051 is a reply to message #11751] |
Wed, 24 July 2002 11:21 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
I am not arguing it would be different i am just asking the question from
different angles. The major question is since the resulting app
needs/depends on a runtime library are you required to also provide the
source code for these ? Instantiation did a demo of their java to native
compiler on one of eclipse samples. But so far i have not seen people
discussing this isue.
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ahl225$kmh$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Why would it be any different than compiled in any other way?
>
> Bob
>
> "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ahk0o3$4kp$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native version
of
> > eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the binaries
where
> > does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts of
> > applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of the
> > licensing terms.
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #570337 is a reply to message #11890] |
Thu, 25 July 2002 18:32 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
This isn't the right place to ask the question. In fact, before asking it
you might want to review the information available at
http://eclipse.org/legal/main.html If you still aren't satisfied, there's a
mechanism to ask the lawyers directly. (Don't hold your breath for an
answer. ;-)
The reason you haven't seen people discussing this issue because most people
don't think there is an issue.
Bob
"dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ahmf2a$cj0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> I am not arguing it would be different i am just asking the question from
> different angles. The major question is since the resulting app
> needs/depends on a runtime library are you required to also provide the
> source code for these ? Instantiation did a demo of their java to native
> compiler on one of eclipse samples. But so far i have not seen people
> discussing this isue.
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:ahl225$kmh$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Why would it be any different than compiled in any other way?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:ahk0o3$4kp$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native
version
> of
> > > eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the binaries
> where
> > > does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts of
> > > applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of the
> > > licensing terms.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #570816 is a reply to message #11890] |
Mon, 29 July 2002 11:52 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Dominic
I believe this is another question that I assume stems from your concern of
derivative works and how the CPL is propogated?
I'm not sure exactly what your question is but I assume you are asking what
happens if you get source from Eclipse.org, licensed under say the CPL, and
then compile it, how does the CPL require you to license your resulting
binaries?
I'm not sure I understand where the "native" comes in? Native in what
respect?
Adrian
"dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ahmf2a$cj0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> I am not arguing it would be different i am just asking the question from
> different angles. The major question is since the resulting app
> needs/depends on a runtime library are you required to also provide the
> source code for these ? Instantiation did a demo of their java to native
> compiler on one of eclipse samples. But so far i have not seen people
> discussing this isue.
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:ahl225$kmh$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Why would it be any different than compiled in any other way?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:ahk0o3$4kp$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native
version
> of
> > > eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the binaries
> where
> > > does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts of
> > > applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of the
> > > licensing terms.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #570869 is a reply to message #13221] |
Mon, 29 July 2002 12:51 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
My question was for someone using java to native compilers. There are 2 ways
of compiling the java source natively.
1) compile directly from java to native. Supported by tools like gcj , jove
etc ...
2) compile java to c/c++ an then use a normal c/c++ compiler.
In both cases the resulting binaries will depend on a runtime library that
implements the java class libraries. In the case of gcj it is called libgcj.
I m not sure about other tools but i am prutty sure they are all
proprietary. Sooner or later someone will be crazy enough to take the task
of recompiling swt/jface/gef under a native version. Or even the whole
eclipse source for that matter. The idea of writing in java and targetting
native speed (specially for embedded systems) is very attractive. My
question is on redistributing those binaries. There are 2 ways of seing and
i am not sure which one oti will stand with in the future.
1) The resulting binaries could be considered as a "port" of the swt libs to
a certain platform and hence all dependant source falling to CPL. I do not
see why someone who took the swt source will not be willing to share the
modifications he made to the swt source in particular. However the runtime
libs which represent 90% of the work is a totally different beast.
2) The resulting binaries could be considered as there java classes
counterpart. And hence only modifications made to swt in order to run
natively required. For example all the java source that swt depends on are
not required and obviously do not fall under CPL when swt is compiled as
java classes. The major difference here is that when swt is compiled
natively there is no separate VM process (like java) that has all the
required runtime libs . All the required runtime libs will be linked either
statically or dynamically in the native version.
FYI: I have already sent questions to opensrc@us.ibm.com
"Adrian Cho" <adrian_cho@oti.com> wrote in message
news:ai3oa5$b58$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Hi Dominic
>
> I believe this is another question that I assume stems from your concern
of
> derivative works and how the CPL is propogated?
>
> I'm not sure exactly what your question is but I assume you are asking
what
> happens if you get source from Eclipse.org, licensed under say the CPL,
and
> then compile it, how does the CPL require you to license your resulting
> binaries?
>
> I'm not sure I understand where the "native" comes in? Native in what
> respect?
>
> Adrian
>
> "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ahmf2a$cj0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > I am not arguing it would be different i am just asking the question
from
> > different angles. The major question is since the resulting app
> > needs/depends on a runtime library are you required to also provide the
> > source code for these ? Instantiation did a demo of their java to native
> > compiler on one of eclipse samples. But so far i have not seen people
> > discussing this isue.
> >
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > news:ahl225$kmh$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > Why would it be any different than compiled in any other way?
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ahk0o3$4kp$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native
> version
> > of
> > > > eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the binaries
> > where
> > > > does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts of
> > > > applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of the
> > > > licensing terms.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #570903 is a reply to message #12962] |
Mon, 29 July 2002 14:15 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Forgive me but i think this *is* the right place to ask such questions until
a license specific group is created. If however this sort of question is at
all not advisable to ask then it's definitely not the right place !
p.s.
plz feel free to add IANAL disclaimers as you see fit. I obviously need the
opinion of a copetent lawyer utltimately if i ever start doing something.
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ahps17$9ha$1@rogue.oti.com...
> This isn't the right place to ask the question. In fact, before asking it
> you might want to review the information available at
> http://eclipse.org/legal/main.html If you still aren't satisfied, there's
a
> mechanism to ask the lawyers directly. (Don't hold your breath for an
> answer. ;-)
>
> The reason you haven't seen people discussing this issue because most
people
> don't think there is an issue.
>
> Bob
>
> "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ahmf2a$cj0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > I am not arguing it would be different i am just asking the question
from
> > different angles. The major question is since the resulting app
> > needs/depends on a runtime library are you required to also provide the
> > source code for these ? Instantiation did a demo of their java to native
> > compiler on one of eclipse samples. But so far i have not seen people
> > discussing this isue.
> >
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > news:ahl225$kmh$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > Why would it be any different than compiled in any other way?
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ahk0o3$4kp$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native
> version
> > of
> > > > eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the binaries
> > where
> > > > does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts of
> > > > applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of the
> > > > licensing terms.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #571108 is a reply to message #13275] |
Wed, 31 July 2002 04:01 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
You can ask anything you like. The problem is that nobody here knows the
answers. ;-)
Bob
"dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ai40vt$gkr$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Forgive me but i think this *is* the right place to ask such questions
until
> a license specific group is created. If however this sort of question is
at
> all not advisable to ask then it's definitely not the right place !
>
> p.s.
> plz feel free to add IANAL disclaimers as you see fit. I obviously need
the
> opinion of a copetent lawyer utltimately if i ever start doing something.
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:ahps17$9ha$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > This isn't the right place to ask the question. In fact, before asking
it
> > you might want to review the information available at
> > http://eclipse.org/legal/main.html If you still aren't satisfied,
there's
> a
> > mechanism to ask the lawyers directly. (Don't hold your breath for an
> > answer. ;-)
> >
> > The reason you haven't seen people discussing this issue because most
> people
> > don't think there is an issue.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:ahmf2a$cj0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > I am not arguing it would be different i am just asking the question
> from
> > > different angles. The major question is since the resulting app
> > > needs/depends on a runtime library are you required to also provide
the
> > > source code for these ? Instantiation did a demo of their java to
native
> > > compiler on one of eclipse samples. But so far i have not seen people
> > > discussing this isue.
> > >
> > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ahl225$kmh$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > Why would it be any different than compiled in any other way?
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ahk0o3$4kp$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native
> > version
> > > of
> > > > > eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the
binaries
> > > where
> > > > > does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts
of
> > > > > applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of
the
> > > > > licensing terms.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [CPL] Eclipse native version [message #571211 is a reply to message #14421] |
Wed, 31 July 2002 11:50 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
This is very funny ... seriously this made me laugh ! If i do not get
anything back from the lawyers in a week or so [i am not holding my breath]
i will start a new thread under eclipse.tools. Someone plz fix this
newsgroup mess.
"Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
news:ai8516$9ik$1@rogue.oti.com...
> You can ask anything you like. The problem is that nobody here knows the
> answers. ;-)
>
> Bob
>
> "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ai40vt$gkr$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Forgive me but i think this *is* the right place to ask such questions
> until
> > a license specific group is created. If however this sort of question is
> at
> > all not advisable to ask then it's definitely not the right place !
> >
> > p.s.
> > plz feel free to add IANAL disclaimers as you see fit. I obviously need
> the
> > opinion of a copetent lawyer utltimately if i ever start doing
something.
> >
> > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > news:ahps17$9ha$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > This isn't the right place to ask the question. In fact, before asking
> it
> > > you might want to review the information available at
> > > http://eclipse.org/legal/main.html If you still aren't satisfied,
> there's
> > a
> > > mechanism to ask the lawyers directly. (Don't hold your breath for an
> > > answer. ;-)
> > >
> > > The reason you haven't seen people discussing this issue because most
> > people
> > > don't think there is an issue.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ahmf2a$cj0$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > I am not arguing it would be different i am just asking the question
> > from
> > > > different angles. The major question is since the resulting app
> > > > needs/depends on a runtime library are you required to also provide
> the
> > > > source code for these ? Instantiation did a demo of their java to
> native
> > > > compiler on one of eclipse samples. But so far i have not seen
people
> > > > discussing this isue.
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ahl225$kmh$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > Why would it be any different than compiled in any other way?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > "dominic" <dominic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:ahk0o3$4kp$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > > Hi. In the hypotetical condition that someone develops a native
> > > version
> > > > of
> > > > > > eclipse from either recompiling the java source or from the
> binaries
> > > > where
> > > > > > does this fall in as far as CPL is concerned ? I have seen posts
> of
> > > > > > applications compiled natively but i have not seen discussion of
> the
> > > > > > licensing terms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.08122 seconds
Home