Actually we already discussed this if you remember and we voted for such a
license.
HOWEVER be aware that it is in no way a "exception" or "modification" it is
just a "NOTICE" (outside the terms and conditions) that says applications
and 3rd party modules developed independently of jboss are not CMD'ed work
of jboss and do not fall under the GPL.
It is stating the obvious in a notice.
We already voted yes for that notice (exactly like LInux's) and we will
update all license ref in source files for jboss2.0 final
I gotta go back to work
marc
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan OConnor
|Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 4:52 AM
|To: jBoss Developer
|Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update
|
|
|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
|>
|>
|>
|
|
|
|
