on 10/27/2000 10:10 PM, "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 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.
> |It is funny to me how you say that you are integrating our code which I
> |think is great, but the real issue is that we can't integrate YOUR code
> |because you choose to use the GPL license.
>
> why not? what exactly prevents you from integrating our work? Please be
> explicit,
>
> let's not work from hearsay and "impressions" of the GPL, the GPL is very
> explicit.
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.
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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
