(EVERYONE: Please, PLEASE, leave the threats at the door. Honestly,
raising the general level of antagonism is not getting us anywhere!)
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, marc fleury wrote:
> Aaron the bundling of APIs (JSP, EJB) that don't work together (JSP doesnt
> rely on EJB, and EJB doesnt rely on JSP) is PURE aggregation. It is useful
> for the beans. There is never CMD in the aggregate work.
>
> I am sorry but the line in the license is extremelly clear (yes specially 2b
> rickard).
Marc, nothing in this entire discussion has convinced me that the
GPL is "extremely clear" on anything - in fact, I find that quite the
opposite to be true. No matter how many times you state "that is not
true" or "the text is clear" it does not convince anyone else of anything.
Perhaps you could substantiate your arguments slightly more?
You seem to think that containment should be strictly interpreted
as "a line of code from program X is placed in program Y". However, that
is not clarified anywhere in the GPL. There is nothing in the wording of
the license that leads me to believe that "containment" refers to "lines
of source code" as opposed to "entire products". What leads you to this
conclusion?
And once again, the deciding factor is not what Marc Fleury
thinks, or even what the jBoss Board thinks, it is what the users,
observers, and lawyers think - what the "community" thinks. After all,
nowhere in the license does it state that the composition of and/or
opinions of the board will never change.
Don't you find it just a little bit worrisome that no one who has
spoken up from any of the Apache projects believes that jBoss can be
legally integrated with Tomcat or Avalon? Even if every single one of
them is wrong, don't you think this unanimous opposition from the groups
we are trying to work with is going to cause problems with the adoption of
the integrated work?
Aaron
> In other words a J2EE server is pure "API together bundled" but I don't see
> the other API from my code, and I never have to add anything to anyone of
> them. All CMD work is GPL'ed (MBeans).
>
> Same mistake with JMX, it is VERY ignorant to claim linking -> GPL. so GPL
> work does run on windows, because windows 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 6:49 AM
> |To: jBoss Developer
> |Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update
> |
> |
> |On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Ole Husgaard wrote:
> |> Before we go to such drastic steps as changing the license,
> |> we should find out exactly what is the problem with the
> |> license we have now. I've seen many flames and much hearsay,
> |> and a lot of crying from both sides, but from facts and
> |> valid arguments I have only been able to identify three
> |> "problems":
> |>
> |> 1) jBoss cannot include the Tomcat code and distribute
> |> the combination without breaking the APL license of
> |> Tomcat.
> |> 2) Tomcat cannot include the jBoss code and distribute
> |> the combination without breaking the GPL license of
> |> jBoss.
> |> 3) Someone (forgot who) refuses to add the jBoss code
> |> to their tree because they have a problem with the
> |> GPL license.
> |
> | I think we need to add
> |
> | 4) It has been debated whether it is legal for jBoss to include
> | packages such as JMX which are neither GPL nor "safe"
> | operating system code
> |
> |> In all three cases my opinion is "So what?".
> |
> | We're all entitled to an opinion.
> |
> |> In the two first cases: These two programs can
> |> easily be distributed seperately.
> |
> | I think the usefulness of a J2EE server is dramatically
> |higher than the usefulness of an EJB server. Thus I think it's
> |safe to say that it's a "good thing" to be able to integrate
> |jBoss and Tomcat. If you insist on keeping them separate, you
> |sacrifice performance (I don't think you could rationally claim
> |they're totally separate product when you distribute same-VM
> |integration code that deals with both directly - unless that's
> |yet another package), distribution (2 packages? How silly is
> |that?), and market (Let's see, I could have one integrated and
> |fully-tested product [Weblogic], or two completely separate
> |products that not even that authors believe can be safely run
> |together...)
> |
> |> In the last case: Don't we already have our own
> |> fine CVS tree?
> |
> | However, I say again that one of the fundamentals of open source
> |is that we should be able to share code. When someone puts together a
> |*really good* package Foo, everyone in the community who could benefit
> |from Foo should be able to use it and improve it. Isn't that what this is
> |all about? It does't make any sense to say "You are welcome to improve my
> |code, but you can't use it." I know that's not we *intend* to say, but
> |it's the effect of our license WRT projects licensed under a BSD
> |license. Shouldn't we all be able to use each other's best work as well
> |as our own? Would we all be better for it?
> |
> |Aaron
> |
> |
> |
>
>
