Ole Husgaard wrote:
> A modified or amended license is problematic, as there is
> no established and well-known interpretation of it.
Agreed. Standard licenses are much better.
> 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.
Which voids all bundling efforts like OpenJoda, or Aarons. Not good. EJB
on its own is quite weak.
> 2) Tomcat cannot include the jBoss code and distribute
> the combination without breaking the GPL license of
> jBoss.
Correct, but this is probably minor.
> 3) Someone (forgot who) refuses to add the jBoss code
> to their tree because they have a problem with the
> GPL license.
Minor.
> 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.
I am personally more concerned with what various uses of jBoss are
possible. Currently it is not possible to make a J2EE server with jBoss
and Tomcat, and that worries me.
> We should also (like always) listen to what the
> jBoss community wants.
Absolutely true.
How many want GPL (for whatever reason) and how many would be ok with
APL (or similar, again for whatever reason)?
> What the Tomcat community wants is their problem,
> and all that we should care about is that we must
> _not_ violate their rights.
True.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
