Well, we have a bidirectional problem. We need to unambiguously
allow other people to use our product (with Tomcat, in J2EE server, etc.)
and we need to unambiguously allow ourselves to use other non-GPL code
(JMX, etc.). I think both of those points have been argued both ways, so
I don't want to comment on the merits of the arguments, just note that it
would be best if it was unambiguous in both cases.
Now, I think that would entail a pretty serious change to the
GPL. That is, not just a statement at the end saying "and by the way
these two things are totally OK", but a modification of some of the
language (like that in section 2.b). And I think this would be pretty
tricky, and you'd *definitely* need lawyers involved.
While I would support such an effort if the outcome was what we're
looking for, I can't help but ask, "Is there another license that does
this already?"
Aaron
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Dan OConnor wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> You have some good points, as have other contributors to this
> discussion.
>
> 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).
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> Comments, anyone? --I'd be quite surprised if no one had an
> opinion. :-)
>
> -Dan
>
>
> On 29 Oct 00, at 23:46, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Dan OConnor wrote:
> > > In no way is the choice of license intended to prevent aggregation
> > > with Tomcat, nor to the best of my knowledge does the board--or
> > > the jBoss community in general--currently believe that this is the
> > > result. This sort of opinion is not like source code; we can't compile
> > > it and see it run (or not). I'm sorry about that. But there it is.
> >
> > Do you acknowledge that a number of people have a different
> > opinion? If so, do you think their opinions count? That is, will you be
> > happy if everyone on the jBoss board believes that jBoss can be legally
> > integrated with Tomcat, or will you be happy if everyone in the world
> > believes that jBoss can be legally integrated with Tomcat?
> > In my case, it is not a case of what I believe, but what my
> > company's clients believe, and unfortunately they do not see eye to eye
> > with the jBoss board. Does that matter to you? It matters to me, because
> > it matters to the people who decide what I will be paid to work on. :)
> > I think we should do whatever we can to make jBoss universally
> > acceptable. Because I want everyone in the universe to be able to choose
> > to use it, on the basis of its features not on the basis of its license.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
