Marc,
First, you seemed to be thinking I was replying to you, but in
fact I was replying to someone else so I did not in fact put words in your
mouth.
Second, here's a quote from the GPL from
http://www.gnu.org./copyleft/gpl.html
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
So, I would consider Tomcat, JMX, Castor, etc. to be "reasonably
considered independent and separate works". However, I would also say
that if you put together a J2EE server including Tomcat, JMX, Castor, and
jBoss, then they are "part of a whole which is a work based on the
Program". Do you disagree?
So I think it's important that we don't give any indication that
Tomcat, JMX, Castor, etc. are distributed as "part of jBoss". I think
including JMX in a jBoss download is a flagrant violation of that. I
think if we put code in the jBoss core that imports Tomcat classes, then
it's pretty indefensible even if I agree that they are still conceptually
separate products.
What is your interpretation?
Aaron
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, marc fleury wrote:
> | Code that's licensed under the GPL but imports code licensed under
> |the APL is treading the line of what might reasonably be considered to be
> |a "derived work" in the eyes of the GPL (thus requiring that the APL code
> |be GPLd and breaking the Tomcat license). So I would strongly urge that
>
> that is just not true, the GPL license doesn't require that it is just not
> true. In fact the GPL says exactly the contrary, understand "distribution"
> please.
>
> |any Tomcat integration code at all goes in a "contrib" module - if core
> |jBoss classes import Tomcat code, then I don't think there's any way this
> |will be legal!
>
> This is plain wrong Aaron, this is not how the GPL operates... missinformed
> license discussions...
>
> The GPL V2 is very *clear* and applies to *derived work* at *distribution
> time* please think about both of these, what we understand as derived work
> (i.e. not applications and certainly NOT TOMCAT) what is distribution,
> before posting mails like this one.
>
> | Also, you mentioned in a later post that we don't change any
> |Tomcat code and that is not true - the newest inVM integration requires
> |some kind of Tomcat code change or addition. So we have to do it right.
>
> I NEVER said that, never... I said exactly the opposite... please...
>
> | Finally, (are you listening, Board?) there mas a rumor floating
> |around a while back about a license addendum that would clarify the
> |situation with regard to "derived work" and jBoss, or perhaps alter the
>
> what rumor?
>
> We *always* said we would put a "notice" explaining our understanding of
> "derived work" since it seems some folks need to be reminded that Tomcat and
> Apache are not "derived works" of jboss. Why that isn't obvious to the
> religious freaks is beyond me...
>
> it is not an "addemdum" it is the same notice that Linus puts in Linux:
>
> "this is what we understand as "NOT DERIVED WORK" (for us it is applications
> and modules developed independently of jboss)"
> and "anyway this is copyrighted by the authors not the FSF"...
>
> derived work is the derived EJB kernel, THAT we protect... how ANYONE can
> claim that Tomcat or Resin or Apache is derived work of jboss is beyond
> me... If an EJB vendor takes the kernel design and makes it their next
> generation kernel and it is not under GPL then yeah... that is a problem,
> but other than that... we are not going to tell Apache that Tomcat is
> derived work and the GPL doesn't require it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> BTW, The notices are Outside of the license terms and conditions. In no way
> are they inside, just notices from the authors in the case of Linux.
>
> |GPL slightly to make it more like the LGPL or something. The rumor said
>
> ?????? what are you talking about ????? I never said this, I *never* talked
> about making jboss "more" LGPL... please! at least have the decency to
> expose FUD privately, if "something" is so plainly wrong that *you* can't
> get it, at least talk to us, but this smells like a can-o-worms you have
> been keeping inside for awhile...
>
> Listen the GPL is very clear in its wording about the scope of its
> application: "Derived work" at "distribution time".
>
> GPL defines conditions on distributed derived work. Understand these
> please, then post but for god's sake stop this FUD. You seriously need to
> take a nap! Heck I should be the one that is stressed out..
>
>
> |that this would be completed and run by lawyers within days, and that was
> |over a month ago. I would be *really nice* to see something like that.
>
> The notice will be there for final, and yes the terms are reviewed but again
> they DON'T CHANGE THE GPL IN ANY WAY.
>
> | It's easy enough for any of us to laugh off the issue, since no
> |one would bother suing me or Marc or Telkel over the GPL, but as I try to
> |push it into larger clients with significant assets, they seem to be
> |correspondingly more sensitive to lawsuit potential that may require them
> |to open-source some of their proprietary products that work with, around,
> |or on jBoss. And of course, there are always punitive damages...
>
> Listen I don't know where you got this from, but it is the kind of argument
> that is missinformed and frankly doesn't fit in an technical open forum, the
> "it is the end of the world, fear the lawyers" and I am frankly surprised to
> be getting this from you....
>
> why do you think SUN and SAP both chose the GPL in the past 4 weeks
> (staroffice and SAP-DB).... because they are trolling for a lawsuit???
> please... Go tell them your big "the end of world is near!!!! everyone run
> around acting crazy!!! the end of the world is near!!!!!" pitch and ask them
> "are you crazy Mr SUN, are you crazy Mr Linux, are you crazy Mr SAP? how
> could you go with the GPL, don't you know the end of the world is
> near????????"
>
> TAKE A CHILL PILL!!!!!! GET OFF THAT SPEED CRANK OF YOURS!!!!!!!
>
> | I would strongly urge the board to make good on those promises and
> |make a more significant statement on the licensing...
>
> As we always said the notice describing "tomcat is not derived work of jboss
> or something" will be added on the website, but the license is the same and
> I "strongly urge" you to get your facts straight before coming here again
> like that.
>
> Aaron, we need to seriously chill and start thinking, you seem to be
> operating with the "FEAR" bit seriously ON and that is not how I know you...
> chill... think.... it's ok, it is going to be fine...
>
> "dont' believe the hype"
> --public enemy--
>
> marc
>
> |
> |Aaron
> |
> |On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Kevin Lewis wrote:
> |> Hi, everyone.
> |>
> |> I would like to submit my Tomcat JNDI (ejb-ref, resource-ref)
> |> integration, asap. However, I would like to resolve the licensing
> |> issues before I do so.
> |>
> |> If my class is licensed under the GPL (as part of jBoss), but imports,
> |> extends, or otherwise uses, Tomcat classes (APL), I think I'm okay,
> |> since the APL is not infective.
> |>
> |> Is this true?
> |>
> |> If so, I'd like to submit my code. I think this might fall under 3rd
> |> Party Integration, which, from the site, would mean I need to talk to
> |> Juha Lindfors. Is this correct?
> |>
> |> Thanks, all.
> |>
> |> --
> |> Kevin Lewis
> |> Middle Reliever
> |> Axys Solutions
> |> http://www.AxysSolutions.com/
> |>
> |
> |
> |
>
>
