> on 10/29/2000 7:57 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Right: we aren't talking about fine wine, rare stamps or gold boullion
> > here. The code has to move and be moveable to live, to be of value.
>
Exactly. Code is not important. People are. You may think a large
company can
indows is not CMD work of GPL...
>
> this is getting tiring...
>
> JMX is not CMD work of jboss...
>
> marc
>
>
> |-Original Message-----
> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aaron Mulder
> |Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000
g
|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 is a killer. For examp
Hi!
Jon Stevens wrote:
> > (Just joking here) We have:
> > usefulness(jBoss)+usefulness(Tomcat) <= usefulness(jBoss+Tomcat)
> > (synergy), and jBoss+Tomcat == (License problems).
> > But usefulness(License problems) == 0, so unless
> > we get this sorted out we have to derive:
> > usefulness(jBos
>We can both agree that neither of us want to violate
>the copyright of the other part, and that each copyright
>holder has a right to distribute _his_ copyrighted
>works under any license _he_ chooses.
power of choice is power of responsibility. You can not choose to claim to
distribute under X
Dear all,
I've read through the GPL license, and I'm not a legal expert but from
what I can see paragraph 2b is a killer. For example, I cannot see how
XO3 can redistribute jBoss with Tomcat and reasonably call it "mere
aggregation" (i.e. our JMX integration is not "mere aggregation", it is
much
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Rickard [iso-8859-1] Öberg wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I've read through the GPL license, and I'm not a legal expert but from
> what I can see paragraph 2b is a killer. For example, I cannot see how
> XO3 can redistribute jBoss with Tomcat and reasonably call it "mere
> aggregatio
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 licen
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,
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 c
on 10/29/2000 7:57 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right: we aren't talking about fine wine, rare stamps or gold boullion
> here. The code has to move and be moveable to live, to be of value.
I agree.
> Marc insists that GPL protects young code. I don't buy that either.
LOL! Tha
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 10/29/2000 6:08 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which to me means that the closest together the two can ever be is if
> > Tomcat talks to JBoss and vice versa via a network socket. Then the two
> > licenses can co-exist. Any code wr
At 01:39 29/10/00 -0800, marc fleury wrote:
...some truly misguided stuff...
Oh - so I take that as "No I haven't contacted lawyers nor anyone who knows
what they are talking about". Well considering you have been made aware on
a publically archived list you really will have no defense in court
on 10/29/2000 6:08 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which to me means that the closest together the two can ever be is if
> Tomcat talks to JBoss and vice versa via a network socket. Then the two
> licenses can co-exist. Any code written to accept a Java interface after
> that netwo
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 vi
on 10/28/2000 11:47 PM, "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jon,
>
> True! it is not a "bad thing" and the APL is less restrictive. GPL'ing the
> kernel makes sense for us as we fight an uphill battle. We put good code
> and need exchange to grow... it is a "protect the young" kinda thi
At 08:55 29/10/00 +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
>Jon Stevens wrote:
>>
>> 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
|The amazing thing here is that the APL 1.1 license is one of the least
|restrictive licenses out there and definitely much less
|restrictive than the
|GPL. So, we are asking to not go to a MORE restrictive license, but to a
|LESS restrictive license. How can that be a bad thing?
jon,
True! it i
Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> 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
ad me???
marc
"Don't do it be sincere"
-- Nude Dimensions 2--
________________
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Stevens
|Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 11:00 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTEC
on 10/29/2000 8:17 AM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Futhermore, I can change what I think is "contained" and what I think is
> "aggregated" in a Java program in a very technical fashion. So far I
> think Jon has a very salient point.
Thanks. :-)
Let me re-state things one more tim
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 dis
>| 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
| 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 s
> The problem is, I'm in a situation where (to quote "Ronin"),
>"Whenever there's a doubt, there is no doubt." Whatever you say, I
>haven't heard anything that convinces me that the interpretation is clear
>- I can easily see both sides of the disagreement. I suspect the only way
>for this
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
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 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 lice
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
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.
At 02:18 28/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>on 10/28/2000 10:05 AM, "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I am sorry, I should actually provide some information.
>>
>> We use the GPL to protect the kernel. The virality of the GPL applies to
>> the "derived work" or "modified work as a whole" o
At 02:06 28/10/00 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
>on 10/27/2000 10:10 PM, "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> | 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 l
>> I am sorry, I should actually provide some information.
>>
>> We use the GPL to protect the kernel. The virality of the GPL applies to
>> the "derived work" or "modified work as a whole" of the kernel.
ummm - hello ? - you should seek legal advice as this is NOT what the GPL
saids. It was de
|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
|that is available from Apache.org because JBoss is under a GPL license.
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.
> This is the mutations I was talking about
|> | 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.
|>
|> ???
|>
|>
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aaron Mulder
|Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 12:49 PM
|To: jBoss Developer; Java Apache Framework; Tomcat Dev List
|Subject: RE: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update
|
|
|Marc,
| I'm on
on 10/28/2000 10:05 AM, "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sorry, I should actually provide some information.
>
> We use the GPL to protect the kernel. The virality of the GPL applies to
> the "derived work" or "modified work as a whole" of the kernel.
That is how you interpret it
on 10/27/2000 10:10 PM, "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 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 havi
; 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 PROTE
> The GPL applies to derived work in distribution. Our
> distributions are GPL
> kosher.
Please what is a GPL Kosher distribution? what you want to say with
this?
Iluminate me as i'm becoming more and more concerned by this kind of
religious things, :-)
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
-
k in 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
| 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 n
44 matches
Mail list logo
