Hi Peter,
I hope you will indulge one last response from me on the "platform"
issue (see comments below).
On 30 Oct 00, at 14:16, Peter Donald wrote:
> At 10:11 30/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
> well because if you don't conform to suns definition then it is not the
> J2EE platform ;) You are not able to use JMX or EJB 2.0 until sun decides
> it is allowable for J2EE. Once they do that of course you are not allowed
> to not use it ;)
This relates to Sun's licensing, which is not the subject of
discussion. This has nothing to do with GPL.
>
> right. But the only J2EE platform is the one sun defines. No other platform
> (even if it includes all same extentions) is a J2EE platform. Legal mumbo
> jumbo that sun instituted to get some cash ;)
>
> So even if you are providing a platform that has same extentions (even same
> code) as J2EE it is not J2EE platform without a magic wand being waved by
> sun ;(
>
Fine, but whatever name you want to give our use of the J2EE APIs
(e.g. "The jBoss 'non-J2EE' Application Server"), you should still be
willing to stipulate that they are a platform when interpreting the
GPL. Our use corresponds both structurally and functionally to an
official J2EE application server implementation, and you seem to
be willing to call that a "platform."
What criteria are you applying if not structural and functional? This
is what I was getting at when I said that Sun's name doesn't appear
anywhere in the GPL license. There is no language in the GPL
about a magic wand, either. :-)
-Dan
