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.
It doesn't matter which contains which, in either case the whole
application contains GPL'd parts which implies all of it must be
under the GPL to be distributed. There wouldn't be any need for
the LGPL if not for the
'[...] a "work based on the Program" means either the Program
or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say,
a work containing the Program or a portion of it [...]'
phrase in the GPL. Beans are running in the same executable as
the server; how can you argue that this would not fall under
the 'containing' part above when things like dynamically loaded
C libraries and the bison stub code are commonly agreed on being
'contained', including by those who wrote the GPL?
> Hi users. You can run your non-GPL'd beans on jBoss. No matter
> what.
The real problem isn't in running, since if an end user chooses to
deploy proprietary beans on a GPL server, you can't use that as an
argument that the bean developer should release source. But if the
bean developer himself distributes an proprietary application using
GPL'd code, he is in deep s**t imo.
> 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.
If you have read the relevant parts of the GPL and LGPL documents
and still are not convinced, all I can say is that we have to
agree on disagreeing :-)
> 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
It would not be useless if you believe in the rationale behind
the GPL (*). But I'll admit I would prefer a less viral license.
(My opinion doesn't count much on that one though since I didn't
write any of the code.)
If your view is shared by the rest of the people in the project,
may I ask why the LGPL wasn't used to begin with?
/mats
(*) Well, Stallman argues that the LGPL is a better choice if
you implement a service that is already generally available
since the GPL would only be a limitation and no help
(those who don't like the GPL would just use some other
implementation.) It all comes down to if you believe jboss
provides additional value not generally available.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
