On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 16:20, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
That last thread seemed such a waste of bandwidth. Unfortunately it
swallowed a discussion we were trying to start concerning Licensing
issues associated with the consideration of using BSD style licensed
code in Apache Projects.
To formulate a more solid point people can respond to:
Can BSD licensed code be added to Apache licensed code bases? Can both
licenses be maintained? If so can someone direct me to an example of this?
You should read LKML for about six months or so. In this time, a
licensing discussion and a GPL is evil and maybe even a why binary
code is good/bad/don't care discussion as a bonus are due to happen
(The average brain of the net lasts six months).
As far as I can see:
BSD code inclusion in ASF code is ok, no strings attached, but there
should/must (depends on the BSD license) a notice which the original
copyright must be included with the source tree (or even when starting
the resulting program; some quite old BSD licenses required this, this
is why older AIX/HP-UX boxes displayed a plethora of copyright messages
BTW: I just re-read this conglomerate of politics, ideology, crude
examples and pseudo-legal speech that calls itself LGPL
IMHO, JBoss is in deep sh*t using this license:
- JBoss is not a library. But the JBoss Group insists that it is (which
they seem to do, because they themselves declare JBoss to be one
(they even link the web site cited above)
- If it is a library, then the whole § 2 applies. This basically means,
that I can write an J2EE server by simply extending all the classes
in the JBoss package (but e.g. calling it Foo J2EE Server) and
putting a jboss binary distribution and a file that says:
This product uses code from the JBoss application server with the
appropriate copyright and a link to the JBoss source code repo.
- I can redistribute this in compiled (no source code at all) form
I'd say that LGPL is for a language like Java (which has no concept of
linking) a pretty bad choice. In fact, I'd even look forward to JBoss
Group trying to prove its claims in court. I'm pretty sure that in the
end, the court will sack their own license and they (and all of their
customers) will suddenly have an unlicensed products.
And, if JBoss is a library, then all programs running in the container
are suddently derived works. Which brings a whole new meaning to the
concept of linking _AND_ the legal issues of the licensing terms of
ObDisc: IANAL, I just play one at late-night drinking contests.
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
Außerdem können in Deutschland alle Englisch. [...] so entfällt die
Notwendigkeit [...] Deutsch zu lernen.
-- Johan Micoud auf die Frage warum er kein Deutsch spricht.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]