At 10:11 30/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm no lawyer either, but I need to ask--what does Sun's definition of
>J2EE have to do with the GPL? Clearly, we are using the J2EE
>APIs (current and proposed) as a platform, including EJB 1.1, EJB
>2.0, JMX, etc. Why does it make a difference whether or not the
>particular mix of J2EE APIs has been approved by Sun?
well because if you don't conform to suns definition then it is not the
J2EE platform ;) You are not able to use JMX or EJB 2.0 until sun decides
it is allowable for J2EE. Once they do that of course you are not allowed
to not use it ;)
There is a lot more gotchas - I have been told that the XML guy (forget his
name Bret someone ???) at enhydra.org wrote up a good article regarding
this recently. Haven't yet read it but I think that may explain a few
things. Have a read of that and that *may* explain it - if not I will try
to explain it (but I really will most likely screw it up ;]).
>This is totally mixing apples with oranges. If the copyright owner of
>the J2EE interface code wants to impose conditions on it--such as
>'thou shalt not mix versions of J2EE in one platform'--obviously they
>can. But that shouldn't affect whether those APIs are a platform
>(with regard to GPL) in the slightest. Sun's name (or the JCP)
>doesn't appear in the GPL.
right. But the only J2EE platform is the one sun defines. No other platform
(even if it includes all same extentions) is a J2EE platform. Legal mumbo
jumbo that sun instituted to get some cash ;)
So even if you are providing a platform that has same extentions (even same
code) as J2EE it is not J2EE platform without a magic wand being waved by
sun ;(
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
