|> | 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 never granted 'exceptions'. Please explain.
|
|The exceptions that you are granting is by allowing people who write EJB's
|for your server to allow them to not require them to be GPL'd as well. That
|is clearly an exception to the license. This is very similar to what Linus
|has done with Linux and binary kernel modules.
jon,
applications are *clearly* not covered by the GPL in J2EE (their work
derives from J2EE classes i.e SUN we are *NEVER* in the picture, not even
distribution).
Linux does
1- puts a "notice" (a.k.a FAQ) *outside* the "Terms and Conditions" to state
the obvious, that applications that use linux with "normal system calls" are
not derived from Linux (Oracle/apache derived linux?) and therefore not
covered... in our case we don't even have to make that obvious statement,
beans are derived from J2EE.
2- The ONLY exception he makes to the license is the copyright (the authors
and not the FSF)... we do the same (which means the code belongs to us not
the FSF so there is nothing the FSF can do it is not it's code, (you know
for those yelling "FSF will put you in jail" and all :))
At any rate the discussion on "modules" that make the server can cause more
confusion if you work from "impressions and vapors of the GPL" (tm), however
apps are clearly off-bounds.
|I write code for the ASF under an APL 1.1 license. The GPL and the APL 1.1
|are not compatible licenses and it is "illegal" for me to include GPL code
|within an ASF project. Period. Thus, I cannot take JBoss and
|include it with
|the Turbine Developer Kit because you have things under a GPL license.
Ok Brian explained that one to me the other day. The reason is not so much
the licenses (as we see the two work together happily in the world today)
but the fact that you don't want to put GPL in your tree because of
propagation.
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.
But understand it is a "decision" from the ASF not to include GPL code in
the tree for "purity reasons". Many people integrate GPL all over the place
with other licenses without violation (i.e respect GPL all linux distros
do). This is the mutations I was talking about... but the ASF decides not
to mingle with 60% of the world's OSS codebase *deliberately*.
interestin', an open license and a closed tree
marc
|Sigh, I feel like I'm repeating stuff to you again.
|
|-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/
|
|
|
|
