>| 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 same
>|medium (Linux distributions), and that passage would be redundant if this
>|passage reads as you suggest.
>
>Listen it says
>
>if work is "containing, modifying, deriving" (CMD) of work that is GPL then
>GPL. If not, then not.
>
>(its' a mathematical if and only if)
>Ok let's loop on that for a while...
>
>Apache+Linux=aggregation, Apache is not CMD of Linux
>
>Frankly the wording is extremelly clear. GPL applies to "contained",
>"modified", or "derived" work not aggregated work and that is in the
>license....
>
>what is not clear about it?
well obviously enough that you don't understand it. You really should seek
legal advice or at least advice from someone who knows what they are
talking about (RMS for the GNU angle).
>| 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.
>| 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
>
>Listen, I like the ronin trick
>but there is NO doubt,
>
>Repeat if and only if work is CMD of GPL Work then GPL.
umm NO - go reread it again. Pay particular attention to all sections and
then explain why clause 3 has a number of exceptions near the end ? If you
are still not convinved then seek legal advice
>Take Tomcat, is that "containing" "deriving" "modifying" work of jboss?
>NOOOOO!!!! you don't derive (although you might have been inspired by the
>interceptor layout;-) you don't modify (afaik) and you CERTAINLY don't
>contain.
if tomcat is contained in same archive then it has to be GPL.
If code is contained in archive that links against tomcat then that code
has to be GPL. If that code is GPL then tomcat has to be GPL.
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)
This is a PITA yes and that is the intended solution. RMS set the license
up this way so that it makes it more desirable to GPL the whole work.
>|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 to ultimately be resolved is to take it to a lawyer and/or RMS.
>|Any volunteers? :)
>
>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 ?
>2- this is copyright telkel+jboss authors.
this has nothing to do with anything.
>| 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
>
>again the licenses are compatible, what is not compatible is that ASF
>doesn't want GPL code in the tree.
NO they are NOT. RMS goes over the reasons on the web page. There is
currently one remaining clause that makes APL not GPL compatable (thou
hopefully eventually that will go away)
>It's a policy gentlemen, that forces us
>to do something if we want you guys to include code in your tree. Again I
>understand that, well I respect it more than I understand it, and that seems
>to mean "separate projects".
It is not the APL that blocks it but the GPL. GPL is incompatable with APL
and linking against it like you have done is illegal and all copyright
holders are liable for such things.
I would hate to be in that position when a large company adopts jBoss
looses cash because you have mislicensed product and then goes after you.
In my country (Australia) it means up to 10 years in jail - sound like fun ?
>I already stated my honest belief that many
>bees are better than a drunken duck (wow, that sounded good, I gotta reuse
>it and use that ronin trick )...
I agree
>|change licenses in order to enable true sharing of code, which is one of
>|the greatest promises of open source. And it doesn't sound like either
>|party is willing.
>
>to be very honest, I don't care that much, about the GPL, the APL, and the
>horses they rode in town on. I care even less about the grandiose
>statements about "philosophy" from "the ladies corner". Honestly all I care
>about is that our common code kicks ass.
Well considering you are butchering the GPL it is quite obvious you have no
respect for it. Whether you like it or not you have insulted a lot of
people by this - maybe it will stand and maybe it won't but consider this
way. The GNU projects sees projects like your own who violate the GPL as
bigger threats than proprietry software, Apache considers them not useful
as they can't share. Put this in a bowl and shake and you have your
situation.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
