|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, this is not an exception, it is a notice that linus puts on Linux that
says "that normal system calls are not derived work". For us it is even
clearer the applications running on top of jboss import J2EE classes (sun)
never jboss...
again does apache derive from linux? no, does apache contain linux? no, does
apache get infected? no, does oracle no?
The only "exception" that Linus makes of the GPL is the "copyright" that is
held by the authors and not the GPL (we do the same)
|> 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.
huh... why? there is no explaination here, just a restatement of the "APL
and GPL" are not compatible.
If you insist on Apache is derived work of jboss then we have a problem, if
not not, the GPL is very clear.
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/
|
|
|
|
