Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> For what it's worth...
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:03:39 -0500
> From: Free Software Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Java, GPL, & APL
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> [snip]
> > 1) Is it legal for the APL product to work with the GPL product through
> > the standard interfaces defined by Sun in the javax.* packages? We
> > suspect yes, since this is a standard and the APL program never reaches
> > "through" those standard interfaces to deal directly with the GPL code.
>
> It appears that you combine the APL'ed software with the GPL'ed software to
> form a larger program. This is not permitted, since the APL is incompatible
> with the GPL.
He is right about combining GPL and APL software here, but I
think there is a reason he says "It appears that you combine".
If javax.* is platform code, then we do not combine.
Otherwise running APL and GPL code in seperate VMs on the same
OS would also be combining, as we use platform code (OS) for
the communication.
> > 2) Is it legal for the GPL product to directly reference APL classes to
> > configure and start the APL product?
>
> No, that is not legal, because you are combining the two programs to form a
> larger program.
Right. No doubt.
This is why importing classes from the APL software
is so problematic and should be avoided.
> > 2b) If there is a problem with this, is there any way to configure and
> > start the two products in the same VM?
>
> Not if they make calls to each other. You'll need to get the license of one
> or the other changed to a dual license---the disjunction of the GPL and the
> APL.
But what if they do _not_ make calls to each other,
except for generic communication through the platform?
> > 3) Would it be appropriate to package the GPL product and "glue
> > code" (startup and configuration for APL product) together, and leave the
> > APL product separate?
>
> We believe this is legally the same as distributing them together, and thus,
> is not permitted.
Right. Glue code must be both APL and GPL compatible, but
if the glue code is part of GPL code it has to be GPL which is
incompatible with APL.
> > 4) Would it be legal to package everything together, and create one
> > combined download that "out-of-the-box" runs both products together? This
> > is the subject of much debate.
>
> That is not permitted since the APL is incompatible with the GPL.
>
> > So it's not clear whether the phrase "contains or is derived
> > from" would apply to this single unified package.
>
> We argue that it definitely does, when you combine them together to form a
> larger program.
Right.
But aggregation on a disk or a communications medium is
exempt from GPL.
So what if:
- We have a jBoss distribution with _only_ GPL code, and
no imports from non-GPL code, except for platform code.
- Somebody (or we) create an archive consisting of the
jBoss distribution and a set of other non-GPL independent
software packages, where the other non-GPL software
does not import from jBoss (or interact with jBoss in
any way except through platform code).
- Somebody (or we) write a script making it simple for a
end user to put all these things in their right place.
Should go to ask FSF, but I would like to hear your
opinion on this first.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
