> At 11:09 4/11/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >Peter wrote:
> >>
> >> email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask for their opinion. Phrase it
> >> "Why can't I link against propritry libraries that are not
> >> part of OS/compiler?". Easiest way to do it.
> >
> >How would this be different than asking Stallman directly?
>
> No different.
That's excellent news, because he's already been contacted! Or
am I missing something?
Marc Fleury wrote:
> Ok,
>
> so I talked to everyone, meaning : Richard Stallman, and Bruce Perens.
>
> One is the inventor of "GNU", the other the co-author of "Open Source
> Definition" (and recently on the board of Telkel, helping on jboss).
>
> The bottom line is pretty clear. Since we define what we understand
> by containing/modified/derived work and we own the copyright, we
> pretty much give up our legal rights to sue anyone on violation of our
> terms. That is the point that Brian Behlendorf made to his lists. So
> now that I have got the "ah! we are right" ego-thing out of the way,
> we can move on...
>
> However there are 2 things that I take into account
>
> 1- Stallman, even though he was the most supportive of all (and great
> in his emails) does believe it can provide "unpure" interpretations
> from some people. I want to avoid that, out of respect for the
> movement.
>
> 2- Perception is important and we DO want businesses to embed
> jboss.jar. I WANT that out of ambition for OUR movement.
>
> So all parties have recommended that a move to LGPL
>
> We (board) are OK with LGPL because it provides:
>
> 1- The LGPL triggers ONLY on modification of the code (no "contain"
> thing in the definition) so to the FAQ: "Can I embed jboss.jar AS IS
> in my application under ANY license legally?" the answer is A: "YES".
> A resounding yes... Period.
>
> 2- If someone wants to modify jboss he needs to talk to us and so we
> still get the code back and some protection against BEA/IBM and such.
> I appreciate the Apache folks saying "it is mature, let it go",
> however it is getting more mature, yes, I am letting go of some
> protection yes, but we are still fighting in a $9Bn market and I don't
> want to count only on "faith".
>
> So LGPL provides both points and seems to fit the bill.
> 1- Embedding is encouraged
> 2- Code feedback is alive!
>
> OK basically I would like this change to go through for the FINAL
> release and that means that ALL authors NEED TO SEND THE BOARD A NOTE
> SAYING THEY AGREE WITH THE CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Finally while we (the board) propose LGPL, one of the members of the
> board recommended we open discussion on the "what license" thing. My
> primary reason for proposing LGPL is "move fast" for FINAL, and also
> it seems there is still a lot of high feelings about licenses and I
> don't want another religious battle around meanings of words, we have
> 2 weeks left to FINAL so let's do it...
>
> marc
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
