Bear with me - I just want to get this totally straightened out -
a number of half-completed conversations have gotten me nowhere. More
comments below, but the next most important point: how do you feel about
this section?
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License."
According to that, the GPL doesn't just cover derived works - it
also covers works that *include* GPL works. A J2EE server package would
certainly *contain* jBoss, which would mean the whole package (including
Tomcat or whatever) would need to be GPLd. That would be unpleasant.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, marc fleury wrote:
> yes... I disagree and strongly...
>
> think a second, it would mean that if we distribute two separate jars on the
> same page it is ok? (think, does it strike you as stupid?)
Of course it strikes me as stupid. The fact that we have to
discuss this at all strikes me as stupid, since it is, after all, all
open-source. However, the position I'm being forced to adopt is what is
defensible in court, not what I think is intelligent.
> It just says that if parts of the *modified work* are indenpendent and can
> be considered separate works then you can distribute under whatever license
> as long as you separate distribution.
>
> BUT TOMCAT IS NOT MODIFIED WORK, AND TOMCAT IS NOT DERIVED WORK, it is mere
> aggregation.
> So the rest of the paragraph does not apply to Tomcat. It applies to the
> MODIFIED WORK AS A WHOLE.
Certainly if you run Tomcat and jBoss separately, there is no
issue about a derived work. But if you run them inVM, there is jBoss code
that loads and executes "org.apache.tomcat.startup.EmbededTomcat". With
that, I think the total is a derived work - they are inextricably linked.
You can't plausibly argue that "org.apache.tomcat.startup.EmbededTomcat"
could start a different server. If you created an interface
("ServletStartup") which any servlet container could implement, and then
put the class name in a properties file or something, then I think you
could say the servlet engine is interchangeable and they are not together
a derived work. But when the class name is in your source code...
> Do you remember the paragraph right after this one (talks about aggregation,
> don't cut it out:) it was meant to clear confusions like the one you just
> made, that says that "aggregation of independent work is not modified work".
> We aggregate independent work and derived work (the JMX MBeans) in a whole.
> Our "modified work" is the MBean, the glue. The paragraph says that we
> could distribute the MBeans separately under any license, (if they were
> independent "reasonably" which they are not)...
Sorry, I disregarded this because it seems to be directed at more
of a Linux Distribution approach - many independent programs on one
medium. But if you believe that Tomcat and jBoss are in fact independent,
then sure, the aggregation section applies. I think we're in pretty goos
shape if you can resolve the source code references.
> but that is NOT the case we are discussing for Tomcat, Tomcat is never part
> of the MODIFIED WORK.
>
> It is funny to talk to Apache guys (was having lunch with Brian B on
> wednesday) and the definition of "derived works" seems opaque to many people
> over there, they seem to forget Oracle runs on Linux and Oracle is miles
> from open ... so I ask again, do you consider tomcat as non-derived work, if
> so then let's go home and stop the non-sense, because the GPL applies to
> derived work in distribution.
>
> No, it is not, JMX is not derived work of jboss, we don't provide modified
> work in the JMX base. The only modified work we provide is the JMX glue for
> jboss, i.e. our MBeans in the jboss base, and that is already GPL. GPL ok.
Hmmm... okay, I think you're right on this.
> Please get it, go home, come back on monday...
He he... I work from home. :)
> you need to really grokk that and the best is to use the "no-nonsense"
> approach....
That is sufficient for me personally. But I need to be able to
convince people with money on the line, and "no nonsense" regrettably does
not sway the day with lawyers in the room.
Aaron
> GPL is pretty clear
> and its terms are laid out.... and then we can have a simple conversation
> without jihad "tomcat MUST be GPL, won't work, end of the world!!!!" ...
>
> do you grokk derived work yet?
>
> Just hold on to "tomcat is not derived work and GPL covers derived work in
> distribution"...
>
>
> |think if we put code in the jBoss core that imports Tomcat classes, then
> |it's pretty indefensible even if I agree that they are still conceptually
> |separate products.
> | What is your interpretation?
>
> it is not interpretation Aaron, it is a fact... I won't go and claim tomcat
> is derived work,
>
>
> marc
>
>
> |
> |Aaron
> |
> |On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, marc fleury wrote:
> |> | Code that's licensed under the GPL but imports code licensed under
> |> |the APL is treading the line of what might reasonably be
> |considered to be
> |> |a "derived work" in the eyes of the GPL (thus requiring that
> |the APL code
> |> |be GPLd and breaking the Tomcat license). So I would strongly urge that
> |>
> |> that is just not true, the GPL license doesn't require that it
> |is just not
> |> true. In fact the GPL says exactly the contrary, understand
> |"distribution"
> |> please.
> |>
> |> |any Tomcat integration code at all goes in a "contrib" module - if core
> |> |jBoss classes import Tomcat code, then I don't think there's
> |any way this
> |> |will be legal!
> |>
> |> This is plain wrong Aaron, this is not how the GPL operates...
> |missinformed
> |> license discussions...
> |>
> |> The GPL V2 is very *clear* and applies to *derived work* at *distribution
> |> time* please think about both of these, what we understand as
> |derived work
> |> (i.e. not applications and certainly NOT TOMCAT) what is distribution,
> |> before posting mails like this one.
> |>
> |> | Also, you mentioned in a later post that we don't change any
> |> |Tomcat code and that is not true - the newest inVM integration requires
> |> |some kind of Tomcat code change or addition. So we have to do it right.
> |>
> |> I NEVER said that, never... I said exactly the opposite... please...
> |>
> |> | Finally, (are you listening, Board?) there mas a rumor floating
> |> |around a while back about a license addendum that would clarify the
> |> |situation with regard to "derived work" and jBoss, or perhaps alter the
> |>
> |> what rumor?
> |>
> |> We *always* said we would put a "notice" explaining our understanding of
> |> "derived work" since it seems some folks need to be reminded
> |that Tomcat and
> |> Apache are not "derived works" of jboss. Why that isn't obvious to the
> |> religious freaks is beyond me...
> |>
> |> it is not an "addemdum" it is the same notice that Linus puts in Linux:
> |>
> |> "this is what we understand as "NOT DERIVED WORK" (for us it is
> |applications
> |> and modules developed independently of jboss)"
> |> and "anyway this is copyrighted by the authors not the FSF"...
> |>
> |> derived work is the derived EJB kernel, THAT we protect... how ANYONE can
> |> claim that Tomcat or Resin or Apache is derived work of jboss is beyond
> |> me... If an EJB vendor takes the kernel design and makes it their next
> |> generation kernel and it is not under GPL then yeah... that is a problem,
> |> but other than that... we are not going to tell Apache that Tomcat is
> |> derived work and the GPL doesn't require it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> |>
> |> BTW, The notices are Outside of the license terms and
> |conditions. In no way
> |> are they inside, just notices from the authors in the case of Linux.
> |>
> |> |GPL slightly to make it more like the LGPL or something. The rumor said
> |>
> |> ?????? what are you talking about ????? I never said this, I
> |*never* talked
> |> about making jboss "more" LGPL... please! at least have the decency to
> |> expose FUD privately, if "something" is so plainly wrong that *you* can't
> |> get it, at least talk to us, but this smells like a can-o-worms you have
> |> been keeping inside for awhile...
> |>
> |> Listen the GPL is very clear in its wording about the scope of its
> |> application: "Derived work" at "distribution time".
> |>
> |> GPL defines conditions on distributed derived work. Understand these
> |> please, then post but for god's sake stop this FUD. You
> |seriously need to
> |> take a nap! Heck I should be the one that is stressed out..
> |>
> |>
> |> |that this would be completed and run by lawyers within days,
> |and that was
> |> |over a month ago. I would be *really nice* to see something like that.
> |>
> |> The notice will be there for final, and yes the terms are
> |reviewed but again
> |> they DON'T CHANGE THE GPL IN ANY WAY.
> |>
> |> | It's easy enough for any of us to laugh off the issue, since no
> |> |one would bother suing me or Marc or Telkel over the GPL, but
> |as I try to
> |> |push it into larger clients with significant assets, they seem to be
> |> |correspondingly more sensitive to lawsuit potential that may
> |require them
> |> |to open-source some of their proprietary products that work
> |with, around,
> |> |or on jBoss. And of course, there are always punitive damages...
> |>
> |> Listen I don't know where you got this from, but it is the kind
> |of argument
> |> that is missinformed and frankly doesn't fit in an technical
> |open forum, the
> |> "it is the end of the world, fear the lawyers" and I am frankly
> |surprised to
> |> be getting this from you....
> |>
> |> why do you think SUN and SAP both chose the GPL in the past 4 weeks
> |> (staroffice and SAP-DB).... because they are trolling for a lawsuit???
> |> please... Go tell them your big "the end of world is near!!!!
> |everyone run
> |> around acting crazy!!! the end of the world is near!!!!!" pitch
> |and ask them
> |> "are you crazy Mr SUN, are you crazy Mr Linux, are you crazy Mr SAP? how
> |> could you go with the GPL, don't you know the end of the world is
> |> near????????"
> |>
> |> TAKE A CHILL PILL!!!!!! GET OFF THAT SPEED CRANK OF YOURS!!!!!!!
> |>
> |> | I would strongly urge the board to make good on those promises and
> |> |make a more significant statement on the licensing...
> |>
> |> As we always said the notice describing "tomcat is not derived
> |work of jboss
> |> or something" will be added on the website, but the license is
> |the same and
> |> I "strongly urge" you to get your facts straight before coming here again
> |> like that.
> |>
> |> Aaron, we need to seriously chill and start thinking, you seem to be
> |> operating with the "FEAR" bit seriously ON and that is not how I
> |know you...
> |> chill... think.... it's ok, it is going to be fine...
> |>
> |> "dont' believe the hype"
> |> --public enemy--
> |>
> |> marc
> |>
> |> |
> |> |Aaron
> |> |
> |> |On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Kevin Lewis wrote:
> |> |> Hi, everyone.
> |> |>
> |> |> I would like to submit my Tomcat JNDI (ejb-ref, resource-ref)
> |> |> integration, asap. However, I would like to resolve the licensing
> |> |> issues before I do so.
> |> |>
> |> |> If my class is licensed under the GPL (as part of jBoss), but imports,
> |> |> extends, or otherwise uses, Tomcat classes (APL), I think I'm okay,
> |> |> since the APL is not infective.
> |> |>
> |> |> Is this true?
> |> |>
> |> |> If so, I'd like to submit my code. I think this might fall under 3rd
> |> |> Party Integration, which, from the site, would mean I need to talk to
> |> |> Juha Lindfors. Is this correct?
> |> |>
> |> |> Thanks, all.
> |> |>
> |> |> --
> |> |> Kevin Lewis
> |> |> Middle Reliever
> |> |> Axys Solutions
> |> |> http://www.AxysSolutions.com/
> |> |>
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |
> |>
> |>
> |
> |
> |
>
>
