I'm not sure I like the "import" but, since we extend and implement part of
the EJB spec, which is serviced by code that is provided under the GPL
license. It just seems to create too fine a line.
If I use a JMS implementation, based on the JMS spec, and do not alter the
source of the JMS piece, then my code should not be GPL'ed, or are you
saying it is?
Thor HW
----- Original Message -----
From: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EJBoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Misleading info about the GPL?
>
>
> > (2) I agree with Dan that EJBoss is not a part of my beans, but what if
> > I use BMP via calls to Jaws (I know I shouldn't) or use jnp as a general
> > JNDI provider for non EJB objects. Am I in danger?
>
> No for JNP (you would use JNDI)
>
> However if you do an import jBoss.jaws then yes.
>
> Same as javax.ejb your work is a derivative of the import you do (you
> include jndi in this case). You can run on us and others.
>
> WE do not bring you anything as we implement it. GPL protects what is
> under the covers and that means the operating system itself. What we
> want is a "bubble" in which you are sure that all the community will see
> and share in the code. To provide a loophole in that bubble is of no
> interest to us (aka FreeBSD, LGPL). The propagation outside that bubble
> is non-existent, and Java makes that possible. A strict reading of the
> spec (definition of work = your work) and the precedent set by
> day-to-day usage of Linux should be a no-brainer... do you see the FSF
> (Free Software Foundation, author of the GPL and stuff) up in arms
> banging on Oracle for running on Linux? Did you ever hear their
> lawyers? no because the GPL doesn't cover Work as package/runtime but
> Work as code. Why our situation would be any different is beyond me.
>
> The really nice thing with Java is that we have a clear rule "if you
> import you're it, if not you are not". Jini is another case as it
> bypasses the imports altogether (bypasses the interfaces). All the
> reflection API poses a question, but we are not in that sphere... (you
> never reflect our classes). At least when you work on interfaces you
> have a clean definition and separation. Your beans import javax.ejb,
> javax.jndi, your work is a derivative of SUN's not ours and it is not
> reflexive. We both derivate from SUN we never knew each other before.
> GPL propagates down a tree of dependencies, not UP, so the "viral"
> nature is uni-directional.
>
> marc
>
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > PS. By the way congrats to the jboss team, I have just started using it
> > and am very impressed with the project.
> >
> > Dan OConnor wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10 May 00, at 18:34, Mats Lofkvist wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If you distribute a package consisting of jboss and a set of
> > > > proprietary beans, it should be even easier to argue that the GPL
> > > > applies to all of it.
> > > >
> > > > So imho the text on the web site should be changed to clearly
> > > > describe that jboss can _not_ be used with non-GPL'd beans.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mats,
> > >
> > > You bring up some interesting issues, but this last one isn't a
> > > close call. Your beans don't contain jBoss; jBoss contains your
> > > beans. Proprietary applications can run on Linux. Proprietary
> > > beans can run on jBoss. We need to make this absolutely clear to
> > > everyone, so we don't scare off our users.
> > >
> > > Hi users. You can run your non-GPL'd beans on jBoss. No matter
> > > what.
> > >
> > > This is absolutely consistent with the GPL, in my opinion. If
> > > someone ever convinced us it wasn't, we would need to add a new
> > > license (to the growing horde) that allowed for it. But again, I
> > > strongly believe this isn't necessary.
> > >
> > > An ejb server with a license so viral that it infected beans that were
> > > run on it would be of limited value, even to the open source
> > > community.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> > >
> > > --
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
