Jorgen Thelin a �crit :
>
> Jung , Christoph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> >Then how can jBoss (which is GPL) use the Tomcat server which is
> >> APL?
> >
> >APL is non-infective and open, so you can put a GPL wrapper/interface around
> >without any problem, right?
>
> Wrong. It is the *GPL* that specifically prohibits this.
>
> GPL code can only "link" with other GPL libraries or libraries defined
> as "Operating Systems components".
> Even using reflection with a hard coded class name is apparently defined
> as linking - the code has to have no pre-knowledge of exactly which
> class it will be using.
>
> Read Section 3 of the GPL for the full details, and re-read the two
> Apache messages cross-posted to this list.
>
> >>jBoss is doing a lot of things illegally. At least one of the developers
> >>recognizes this and has pushed to have licensing modified. Laundry list
> >>include all JMX, JMS, apache stuff (ie cocoon/tomcat etc) + any other
> >>non-GPL compatable library.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >Nothing hinders you to get a redestribution license for that stuff
> >(similar the commercial mapping products that interfaces are built for, ect)
> >if you want to ship your final product.
>
> LOL. You should try it some time ;-)
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> >Again, what is the problem of developing/compiling/shipping GPL source code
> >against any commercial/APL/other-licensed stuff ....
>
> The GPL prohibits it.
>
> In fact, if you read the postings to the Apache mailing lists, the
> verdict is that it is currently impossible to license *any* Java program
> as GPL because by definition they link to / use non-GPL libraries in the
> form of the standard JDK class libraries, standard extension packages,
> and/or optional extension package.
>
> You would have to apply to the Free Software Federation to ask that
> specific Java libraries be officially reclassified as "Operating System
> Components". They are currently not, and there is no guarantee they
> ever will be.
I have read that Stallman has recognized that the OS frontiers are
fuzzy. For example, there's no God's judgement saying that a browser has
not to be included in an OS. So the OS definition is fuzzy : I see it
like some core "layer" offering services in order to write programs.
Many say that the Java programs are platform-independant. According to
Stroustrup, this is not really true (I have read such a sentence in his
home page) as Java programs are Java platform-dependant. The Java
platform could be seen an OS (layer) implemented above other OS and
according to this point of view, standard Java libraries (of the JDK)
could be seen as "Operating System Components". What about optional
extension packages ? optional "Operating System Components" ?
Why not ?
Dominique
> :-(
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> | Software Technologies ----:---- http://www.SwTech.com/ |
> | -----------> One-stop Developer Reference <----------- |
> | Technical reference for professional software developers |
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
