ok jon et al...
it is trivial that APL software is incompatible with GPL, since for APL
software to "contain, derive or modify" GPL software is not possible, we all
agree on that. Aggregation of it is OK per the GPL.
The point was and is on ordering of containment that I think is creating
confusion
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Containment>>modification>>derivation>>aggregation
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Containment is very strong, it means an import, a code copy paste, to
create your code.
2 Modification is strong (less) it just means not an exact import but you
modify the initial code and include it in yours.
3 Derivation is a weak link, it means "inspired by" starting from and
deriving code, a good example of this is the
"MBeans that we use to integrate Tomcat in jboss" (actually we also
"contain" the logger ...).
The virality of the GPL applies to work growing from work covered in 1/2/3
THIS IS WHERE THE GPL DRAWS THE LINE FOR VIRALITY
4 Aggregation is the weakest, it just means bundling of work. GPL doesn't
apply.
As you know (and say) the GPL was devised to protect the authors of code by
protecting the code and the recipients of that code. I.e. CMD of my work
WILL REMAIN GPL by viraling the CMD work. CMD of jboss we will see, non CMD
of jboss, we can't talk to you... if someone aggregates tomcat with it, we
don't see it, the GPL doesn't require it, there is NOTHING we can do to
legally force you, your work is not CMD of ours... These are VERY different
things, very different levels of "containment" of work A to B. And please
let's stop 10,000 feet philosophy!!! the wording is clear, legal.
jboss + tomcat (work as the server ) is aggregation mostly with some
"derivation" MBeans.
We all agree that not a line of tomcat falls under 1/2/3
Aggregation is clearly not covered by the license, and aggregating jboss and
tomcat is clearly not covered by GPL.
if Tomcat CONTAINS/MODIFIES/DERIVES "part or whole" of jboss (which it
doesn't) then GPL applies. It is not interpretation it is extremelly clear.
The difference between Containment and aggregation that frankly seems to fly
over many heads here is introduced with many intermediary levels in the GPL.
Don't let "vapors of GPL" and "vague impressions" of what viral means, drive
your thinking (or thrive your drinking). It is CLEARLY !!!! defined and
please take the time to understand the above...
So I am tired of repeating (and it seems each side is repeating at this
point so let's stop it) that Tomcat is not in any way related (meaning CMD),
so we would never require that you GPL your software for someone
distributing independent work in aggregation(not CMD).
BTW it would be us to require it not anybody else... Also I will repeat and
draw your attention to the fact that this software is copyright by us not
FSF.... do you understand the implications of this, Mr Donald??? (and the
"10 years in Australia"). what anyone says is orthogonal, the license is by
us to you in the *wording* of the FSF's GPL, but it is not FSF's copyright,
so not in any way FSF's property, do you copy me?...
And frankly that is a "Standalone" CMD definition... it is extremelly clear.
again this is OUR (c), the last to leave this room please turn the light,
unless Mr Donald is still yelling "10 years in Australia, 10 years you
mo*her f&ckers!!!! Australia!!! 10 years!!!!" in a corner... (actually let's
just turn the light off and go)
Finally jon, I will agree with you on the "threats". It's happened already,
and we are better for it. I will draw your attention to the fact that the
EJB field is already full of alternatives, and the scenario you describe
already happened (someone took our work and duplicated it 9 month ago),
claiming "license" differences. I recommend you look at JOnAS (using
enhydra as front end instead of tomcat or resin, can't blame them) and
openEJB (that's the one, just a container and an interesting direction, we
might integrate down the road). Our field is very competitive, and again,
please leave the "apache" ego at the door, this is the java field and we
still have much to prove and APIs to get under our belts before we go around
like this... do you read me???
marc
________________________
"Don't do it be sincere"
-- Nude Dimensions 2--
________________________
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Stevens
|Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 11:00 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update
|
|
|on 10/29/2000 8:17 AM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|> Futhermore, I can change what I think is "contained" and what I think is
|> "aggregated" in a Java program in a very technical fashion. So far I
|> think Jon has a very salient point.
|
|Thanks. :-)
|
|Let me re-state things one more time though...the real "point" is that I
|spent 4 months trying to work on finding a way to work together
|with the GPL
|and the APL license with some of the "top" people in the OSS industry as
|well as trying to convince Justin Wells to either change to a MPL or APL
|license.
|
|Nothing worked because the GPL is simply unacceptable for many many people.
|Justin refused to do anything to change the license to something that the
|ASF would accept and he backed me into a corner where I had no other choice
|than to simply re-invent his software. Now, at this point, I'm very glad I
|did that because even though we may have forked the community for the short
|term, we have certainly come up with a far better product for the community
|for the long term as well as the fact that Velocity now has an ASF style
|community which I enjoy much more than a single dictator style community.
|
|Again, I'm not threatening that I will do this, but I'm warning Marc that
|someone else will definitely be doing this if he doesn't watch
|out. There is
|enough bad religious feelings about the GPL now and as far as I can tell,
|very few bad religious feelings about the BSD licenses. This in itself has
|already been proven to be enough cause to fork a project.
|
|Based on past experiences, I'm predicting the future and I'm just worried
|that Marc is going to continue arguing with people over this issue and
|someone will come along and simply take his hard work and duplicate it.
|Again, this stuff isn't rocket science. The rule so far is that it is far
|easier to write something from scratch than it is to deal with license
|issues.
|
|I know that is wrong, but the current religious license views that people
|have dictate that and I don't see it changing until RMS decides to change
|the GPL to allow people more freedom with what they do with other peoples
|source code.
|
|FYI, on this page (below), GNU specifically states that the APL 1.1 license
|is NOT compatible with the GPL license. So, Marc, whatever arguments that
|you are trying to make about being able to work with the APL and the GPL
|combined, you are wrong. It is clear that these two licenses cannot have
|their source code together in any shape or form without potentially risking
|the wrath of RMS or lawyers. It just isn't worth it to me to risk whatever
|project I am working on on trying to work with GPL'd software.
|
|<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html>
|
|thanks,
|
|-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/
|
|
|
|
