Thor Heinrichs-Wolpert wrote:
>
> 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?
Do you write code that is in org.spyderMQ or does import org.spyderMQ?
if so yes
Do you write code that does import javax.jms.*?
then no
marc
>
> 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]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
