> (2) I agree with Dan that EJBoss is not a part of my beans, but what if
> I use BMP via calls to Jaws (I know I shouldn't) or use jnp as a general
> JNDI provider for non EJB objects. Am I in danger?
No for JNP (you would use JNDI)
However if you do an import jBoss.jaws then yes.
Same as javax.ejb your work is a derivative of the import you do (you
include jndi in this case). You can run on us and others.
WE do not bring you anything as we implement it. GPL protects what is
under the covers and that means the operating system itself. What we
want is a "bubble" in which you are sure that all the community will see
and share in the code. To provide a loophole in that bubble is of no
interest to us (aka FreeBSD, LGPL). The propagation outside that bubble
is non-existent, and Java makes that possible. A strict reading of the
spec (definition of work = your work) and the precedent set by
day-to-day usage of Linux should be a no-brainer... do you see the FSF
(Free Software Foundation, author of the GPL and stuff) up in arms
banging on Oracle for running on Linux? Did you ever hear their
lawyers? no because the GPL doesn't cover Work as package/runtime but
Work as code. Why our situation would be any different is beyond me.
The really nice thing with Java is that we have a clear rule "if you
import you're it, if not you are not". Jini is another case as it
bypasses the imports altogether (bypasses the interfaces). All the
reflection API poses a question, but we are not in that sphere... (you
never reflect our classes). At least when you work on interfaces you
have a clean definition and separation. Your beans import javax.ejb,
javax.jndi, your work is a derivative of SUN's not ours and it is not
reflexive. We both derivate from SUN we never knew each other before.
GPL propagates down a tree of dependencies, not UP, so the "viral"
nature is uni-directional.
marc
>
> Geoff
>
> PS. By the way congrats to the jboss team, I have just started using it
> and am very impressed with the project.
>
> Dan OConnor wrote:
> >
> > On 10 May 00, at 18:34, Mats Lofkvist wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If you distribute a package consisting of jboss and a set of
> > > proprietary beans, it should be even easier to argue that the GPL
> > > applies to all of it.
> > >
> > > So imho the text on the web site should be changed to clearly
> > > describe that jboss can _not_ be used with non-GPL'd beans.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Mats,
> >
> > You bring up some interesting issues, but this last one isn't a
> > close call. Your beans don't contain jBoss; jBoss contains your
> > beans. Proprietary applications can run on Linux. Proprietary
> > beans can run on jBoss. We need to make this absolutely clear to
> > everyone, so we don't scare off our users.
> >
> > Hi users. You can run your non-GPL'd beans on jBoss. No matter
> > what.
> >
> > This is absolutely consistent with the GPL, in my opinion. If
> > someone ever convinced us it wasn't, we would need to add a new
> > license (to the growing horde) that allowed for it. But again, I
> > strongly believe this isn't necessary.
> >
> > An ejb server with a license so viral that it infected beans that were
> > run on it would be of limited value, even to the open source
> > community.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
