Aaron the bundling of APIs (JSP, EJB) that don't work together (JSP doesnt
rely on EJB, and EJB doesnt rely on JSP) is PURE aggregation. It is useful
for the beans. There is never CMD in the aggregate work.
I am sorry but the line in the license is extremelly clear (yes specially 2b
rickard).
In other words a J2EE server is pure "API together bundled" but I don't see
the other API from my code, and I never have to add anything to anyone of
them. All CMD work is GPL'ed (MBeans).
Same mistake with JMX, it is VERY ignorant to claim linking -> GPL. so GPL
work does run on windows, because windows is not CMD work of GPL...
this is getting tiring...
JMX is not CMD work of jboss...
marc
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aaron Mulder
|Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 6:49 AM
|To: jBoss Developer
|Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update
|
|
|On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Ole Husgaard wrote:
|> Before we go to such drastic steps as changing the license,
|> we should find out exactly what is the problem with the
|> license we have now. I've seen many flames and much hearsay,
|> and a lot of crying from both sides, but from facts and
|> valid arguments I have only been able to identify three
|> "problems":
|>
|> 1) jBoss cannot include the Tomcat code and distribute
|> the combination without breaking the APL license of
|> Tomcat.
|> 2) Tomcat cannot include the jBoss code and distribute
|> the combination without breaking the GPL license of
|> jBoss.
|> 3) Someone (forgot who) refuses to add the jBoss code
|> to their tree because they have a problem with the
|> GPL license.
|
| I think we need to add
|
| 4) It has been debated whether it is legal for jBoss to include
| packages such as JMX which are neither GPL nor "safe"
| operating system code
|
|> In all three cases my opinion is "So what?".
|
| We're all entitled to an opinion.
|
|> In the two first cases: These two programs can
|> easily be distributed seperately.
|
| I think the usefulness of a J2EE server is dramatically
|higher than the usefulness of an EJB server. Thus I think it's
|safe to say that it's a "good thing" to be able to integrate
|jBoss and Tomcat. If you insist on keeping them separate, you
|sacrifice performance (I don't think you could rationally claim
|they're totally separate product when you distribute same-VM
|integration code that deals with both directly - unless that's
|yet another package), distribution (2 packages? How silly is
|that?), and market (Let's see, I could have one integrated and
|fully-tested product [Weblogic], or two completely separate
|products that not even that authors believe can be safely run
|together...)
|
|> In the last case: Don't we already have our own
|> fine CVS tree?
|
| However, I say again that one of the fundamentals of open source
|is that we should be able to share code. When someone puts together a
|*really good* package Foo, everyone in the community who could benefit
|from Foo should be able to use it and improve it. Isn't that what this is
|all about? It does't make any sense to say "You are welcome to improve my
|code, but you can't use it." I know that's not we *intend* to say, but
|it's the effect of our license WRT projects licensed under a BSD
|license. Shouldn't we all be able to use each other's best work as well
|as our own? Would we all be better for it?
|
|Aaron
|
|
|
