Hi,
Dan OConnor wrote:
> One possible solution is to modify the license terms. We could
> include with the GPL a statement that allows the use of ANY third
> party software linked to the EJB container system only through a
> Java API (e.g. JMX) that does not import code from the jBoss
> distribution. This clause could also allow the use of any Java API
> for any purpose (which would put to rest the "can Java code be
> GNU-licensed" issue).
A modified or amended license is problematic, as there is
no established and well-known interpretation of it.
> It is apparently an acceptable use of the GPL license to modify it
> with such a statement. An example--from the gnu web site--is the
> license of guile (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html).
One license is missing from the list although it originated
from FSF: The Library GPL. RMS simply _hates_ that license.
It is somewhat similar to the Lesser GPL (but far from the same).
> It seems that this would meet our goals of ensuring that modified
> code is returned to the community, and would address many of the
> concerns of people such as your company's clients.
Before we go to such drastic steps as changing the license,
we should find out exactly what is the problem with the
license we have now. I've seen many flames and much hearsay,
and a lot of crying from both sides, but from facts and
valid arguments I have only been able to identify three
"problems":
1) jBoss cannot include the Tomcat code and distribute
the combination without breaking the APL license of
Tomcat.
2) Tomcat cannot include the jBoss code and distribute
the combination without breaking the GPL license of
jBoss.
3) Someone (forgot who) refuses to add the jBoss code
to their tree because they have a problem with the
GPL license.
In all three cases my opinion is "So what?".
In the two first cases: These two programs can
easily be distributed seperately.
In the last case: Don't we already have our own
fine CVS tree?
Would Linus Torvalds change the license of Linux
if we refused to add it to our CVS tree because
of his use of the GPL license ,-)
> Comments, anyone? --I'd be quite surprised if no one had an
> opinion. :-)
The biggest problem I see here is cutting off the
flames, flamebait, crying and hearsay.
We should concentrate on the facts:
1) Copyright legislation.
2) APL license.
3) GPL license.
4) Are any of the three above violated, and if
yes: How, and what are the implications?
These three things are the _only_ ones that a
lawyer would look at if he was preparing a case.
We should also (like always) listen to what the
jBoss community wants.
What the Tomcat community wants is their problem,
and all that we should care about is that we must
_not_ violate their rights.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
