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:
Okay, I've heard too many opinions on the
Of Rickard Öberg
|Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 11:42 PM
|To: jBoss Developer
|Cc: tomcat-dev; Java Apache Framework
|Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update
|
|
|Dear all,
|
|I've read through the GPL license, and I'm not a legal expert but from
|what I can see paragraph 2b i
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 w
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, marc fleury wrote:
| What can I say? I agree that this is a reasonable interpretation.
|But I don't think it's the only interpretation, and I'm not sure it's even
|the interpretation intended by the authors. There's another section that
|specifically allows
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, marc fleury wrote:
THIS IS WHERE THE GPL DRAWS THE LINE FOR VIRALITY
4 Aggregation is the weakest, it just means bundling of work. GPL doesn't
apply.
Which to me means that the closest together the two can ever be is if
Tomcat talks to JBoss and vice versa via a
An aside,
There is, AFAIK, one good reason to use GPL over any other Open Source or
Free Software license, and it's a very very good reason: To maximize the
spread of the GPL.
IOW, it's to forward the tenets of freedom in software development and to
more or less declare that other software is
Hi,
Lots of flames and hearsay from both sides, but also
some very valid arguments.
I think we should try to find out exactly where we
agree and where we disagree. This discussion is too
important to use for another flamewar about licensing
ideologies.
We can both agree that neither of us want
on 10/29/2000 8:46 PM, "Aaron Mulder" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should do whatever we can to make jBoss universally
acceptable. Because I want everyone in the universe to be able to choose
to use it, on the basis of its features not on the basis of its license.
Aaron
So, then
on 10/29/2000 11:19 PM, "Ole Husgaard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should try to find out exactly where we
agree and where we disagree. This discussion is too
important to use for another flamewar about licensing
ideologies.
Right, but at the core of the discussion IS the license so
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Dan OConnor wrote:
In no way is the choice of license intended to prevent aggregation
with Tomcat, nor to the best of my knowledge does the board--or
the jBoss community in general--currently believe that this is the
result. This sort of opinion is not like source
distribution. Our distributions are GPL
kosher.
Please don't be afraid of it, and feel free to discuss it...
regards
marc
|-Original Message-
|From: marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 10:10 PM
|To: jBoss Developer; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
|[EMAIL PROTEC
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Jon Stevens wrote:
on 10/28/2000 4:06 PM, "marc fleury" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed if the Avalon guy puts jBoss code in his tree and "contains" our work
in his work then yeah.. that needs to be GPL.
Bingo. So, this is something that is a major problem for me.
on 10/28/2000 5:41 PM, "Aaron Mulder" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Overall, the most unfortunate thing here is that I don't believe
either party is trying to lock out code from the other. But the fact that
the licenses are not compatible means that one group or the other has to
change licenses
on 10/28/2000 5:22 PM, "Peter Donald" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once RMS finds out
about the project misusing the GPL he will start advocating all the GNU
peopls stay away from it.
Someone want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] recommending that RMS
take a look at how the GPL is being
on 10/28/2000 4:46 PM, "marc fleury" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|That is how you interpret it, not how RMS interprets it.
I have a license and the wording is clear.
What people say he said isn't the question.
|I cannot take Tomcat and combine it with JBoss and make a
|distribution of it
At 04:35 28/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
on 10/28/2000 4:06 PM, "marc fleury" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed if the Avalon guy puts jBoss code in his tree and "contains" our
work
in his work then yeah.. that needs to be GPL.
Bingo. So, this is something that is a major problem for me.
and me -
| This is truly unfortunate. There are definitely ares of code that
|could be shared - that *should* be shared, such as logging, dynamic
|proxies, thread pools, and so on. It's too bad that it doesn't happen
|until a javax package is available... Particularly since those are *not*
|open
| What can I say? I agree that this is a reasonable interpretation.
|But I don't think it's the only interpretation, and I'm not sure it's even
|the interpretation intended by the authors. There's another section that
|specifically allows distribution of GPL and non-GPL programs on the
| but at the same time, you have a problem with the GPL being
|viral so you give exceptions for people to use JBoss. Instead, what you
|should do is probably be using the MPL license which will solve your needs
|without having to constantly grant exceptions to people.
???
what 'exceptions'? we
19 matches
Mail list logo
