>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 and violate X which is what I am irritated at.
>(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(jBoss)+usefulness(Tomcat) <= 0.
>;-)
or you have outsiders like me who use neither product ;)
>Peter Donald wrote:
>> >| I think it would definitely be safe to download a set of RPMs (one
>> >|per product) and then install them all and configure them to point to
each
>> >|other (using network protocols, standard interfaces, etc.), but I think
>> >|it's very questionable whether you can put them in a single
pre-configured
>> >|package.
>> >
>> >explain it to RedHat,
>> >This is turning silly
>>
>> RedHat complies. None of it's RPMs contain GPL and GPL incompatable
>> products. They were blasted a while back because they broke this with one
>> of their packages thou so I don't think they will make same mistake again.
>> What red hat does is distribute a medium with multiple packages.
>
>I have this strange feeling that you both agree on this, but that
>none of you want to admit it...
>
>RedHat _does_ distribute software with GPL license and GPL-incompatible
>license on the same physical media.
right.
>We can probably all agree that GPL does allow this due to the last
>paragraph of section 2: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work
>not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the
>Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring
>the other work under the scope of this License."
right.
>What RedHat found out they could _not_ do was to combine software with
>GPL license and GPL-incompatible license into the same binary package,
>and then distribute this package.
right.
>So I guess that the question boils down to: When do we have "mere
>aggregation" and when do we have "combined software" ?
if it imports class/package, directly hardwires classnames, hardwires class
interfaces or hardwire other aspects it is called combined software. jBoss
does this with JMX, Tomcat and other non-GPL compatable libraries. This is
only allowed if it falls under clause 3 of GPL (neither of the above do) or
in other "special" circumstances* (neither of which do either).
* Special circumstances can basically be thought of as hosted components
(ie you could have EJBs in container without GPLing EJBs).
If packages are included in same (like the jars in bin/ and client/) then
they are combined software of which jBoss has a bit. jBoss violates the GPL
as this software is not GPL.
>If I burn a CD with jboss.jar (as distributed from the jBoss site
>under GPL) and tomcat.jar (as distributed from the Tomcat site
>under APL) there should be no problems, as this is "mere
>aggregation". After all both distributions are seperate, except
>for the fact that they have been placed on the same physical media.
right.
>It might become a little more tricky if I decide to order
>a batch of these CDs at a CD production facility. They want
>me to send an ISO image of the CD by email. But the ISO image
>is a single file and it contains both jars. Mailing the ISO
>image is distribution in the GPL sense, so _if_ the ISO image
>is "combined software" I would break the APL license.
APL license has nothing to do with it - it is the GPL license that is the
one that makes the restriction. And this would not brake the GPL because it
is a distribution of distributions.
>But is this ISO image "mere aggregation", or is it "combined
>software" ?
aggregation.
>There is a good argument in favor of "combined software":
>- The ISO image is a single file, so the software must have
> been combined rather than aggregated.
false.
>There is another good argument in favor of "mere aggregation":
>- Neither the jboss.jar nor the tomcat.jar have been changed
> or modified in any way. They are both embedded in the same
> file, but they have not been combined.
They have been combine because jBoss hardwires interaction to tomcat jars.
>How do you think these two conflicting arguments would hold
>in a court of law?
first one falls down as does second thou IANAL and a lawyer should be
consulted.
>> if tomcat is contained in same archive then it has to be GPL.
>
>This is similar to (though not the same) as the ISO image
>case above.
nope.
>If an archive containing unmodified jboss.jar and unmodified
>tomcat.jar is distributed under GPL, that would clearly be a
>violation of APL. And distributing it under APL would be a
>violation of GPL. But do we have to distribute the archive
>under one of these licenses?
if jBoss removes the tomcat linking classes, all MBeans, and the libraries
(and any other non-GPL compatable stuff) it would not violate the GPL but
it would also not be very useful now would it ?
>If both jboss.jar and tomcat.jar are unmodified, I guess that
>it would be possible to argue in favor of "mere aggregation"
>and claim that the archive containing them is simply a volume
>used for distribution. After all, they are both unmodified and
>neither jboss.jar nor tomcat.jar can be used until the archive
>is unpacked.
again - nope.
>Both GPL and APL allow distribution and neither are viral in
>case of simple aggregation, so it _should_ be possible to
>distribute an archive that simply aggregates the unmodified
>software from both of us. Do you agree on this?
yep - as long as it is a distribution of distributions then it is OK. Thou
jBoss still violates it with respect to all the stuff I said above.
>> If dynamically linked via configuration file through a standard interface*
>> and then there is some intermediate code that links to interface then that
>> is OK.
>>
>> To do this you need to supply 3 archives.
>> * jBoss archive (under GPL)
>> * Tomcat archive (under APL)
>> * linking layer (under APL and GPL compatable license - usually public
domain)
>
>Now this is productive: Pointing out a possible solution.
>
>
>I am not using Tomcat so I may be wrong on this, but I
>think that the general idea is to make jBoss independent
>of the actual web application server used. Instead of
>directly calling Tomcat to initialize for embedded
>operation, some (end user editable) configuration file
>entries are used to hold the name of a class to be loaded
>and a method to be called for initializing the embedded
>web server used, with fallback to "no web application
>server" if initialization of the web server fails. As
>most jBoss developers agree that Tomcat is the best web
>application server around, it is intended that the default
>configuration files for jBoss should contain entries for
>starting Tomcat.
right.
>Do you think that the name of a Tomcat class and method
>as defaults in an end user editable configuration file
>would be a violation of the Tomcat APL license, or do
>you think this would come under the "fair use" clause
>of the copyright legislation?
Not about the APL - the APL saids almost anything goes. It is the GPL that
is the license that causes the restriction. Defaulting to Tomcat classes is
fine as long as it is practicably possible to implement multiple webservers
with ease - which means not using any special features of tomcat and having
a "clean" interface.
>> >1- we have a LICENSE gentlemen, words, black on paper... That's what we
work
>> >from.
>> >And the words are clear, I really honestly don't see why the big
confusion.
>> >RMS could be a "auto-response-program" that spouted "all must be GPL"
that I
>> >wouldn't care,
>>
>> Then would you mind if I emailed him and informed him of the situation ?
>
>Before taking his time we should at least find out exactly
>where we agree and where we disagree.
too late - I got tired of discussing it and as jBoss is a serious threat to
GNU and they can eliminate the threat (just disallow jboss.org from using
license or derivatives until complied) he has a right to know.
I may work totally within APL now but I still respect the GPL - something
jBoss does not do. If push comes to shove it will most likely end up with
jBoss isolated from much of free software community. This will be a pity
but you have had enough oportunities to stand down but chose to go forward
with little respect for those around you.
>But please note: What counts here is the legal meaning of
>the texts of GPL and APL, _not_ the strong political views
>of an idealist.
right.
><personal-opinion flamebait="no">
>RMS is an idealist. He thinks that _all_ software should be
>free and that copyright should not apply to software. The
>GPL license does not exactly reflect his opinion, rather it
>is a compromise between his opinion and what is possible in
>the real world. When this compromise turned out to be too
>close to RMS' opinion in some cases, the Library GPL was
>created. RMS always disliked the Library GPL and has even
>tried to write a new Lesser GPL to replace it, but with
>little luck.
>I fear that by asking RMS we get his personal opinion
>rather than an unbiased legal interpretation of the GPL.
></personal-opinion>
Depends on how you phrase it. From my experience he will give you both his
opinion and a legally defensible position. The GPL is relatively water
tight as far as licenses go and it has stood the test od time. Very few
people who violate the GPL have gone to court and very few who have gone to
court (zero I believe) have chose not to settle out-of-court before
proceedings.
You could argue that this is because of all the bad karma etc but in
reality it is because the GPL is very explicit and it takes a lot of time
to understand and is very water tight.
Whatever the case jBoss violates the license in too many cases for it to be
worthwhile going to court. I don't intend to use it in particular so I have
no real problem if jBoss decides to choose a license that prohibts
cooperation. I think it is unfortunate and silly and would fully expect to
see it fall by the wayside but I really have no problem with it.
Whatever the case you have a window of about 3 days before RMS fires up and
possibly a week or two before it will hit the relevent sites. If in that
time you don't stop violation of GPL then you will feel the wrath of GNU
community (which includes those loons at slashdot). This will not be
pleasant for any involved. I would urge you to try to either fcomply with
GPL or choose a new license in this time.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
