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 network socket speaks would negate the legality, so you are stuck
> with something like http as your protocol. So why not just resort to
> sharp sticks and rocks while we're at it?
>
> But then as someone just mentioned, it matters not a stitch what you or I
> or Jon says, it matter what they lawyers say.
Exactly...why not just simplify things for everyone involved and make it a
BSD license. It is the lowest common denominator that still provides
protection for receiving credit for the work you do (that is all that I
personally think OSS authors should get).
So far, I haven't even seen one valid excuse for using the GPL for JBoss in
the first place. Bluntly, this whole debate is simply around the fact that
Marc doesn't want to own up to the fact that he choose a bad license (the
GPL) for his software and doesn't want to admit that he was wrong after
everyone (including myself) told him that the GPL was a bad decision.
The *really* silly thing here is that Marc thinks that by using the GPL he
is protected against certain things when in reality the GPL doesn't protect
him at all from what he wants protection for!
All I can do at this point is sigh and shake my head in complete amazement.
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
