Hi,
Peter Donald wrote:
> >1) jBoss cannot include the Tomcat code and distribute
> > the combination without breaking the APL license of
> > Tomcat.
>
> Nope APL doesn't care. It brakes the GPL if tomcat is included. Tomcat can
> virtually not be in the same VM or else you are breaking the GPL.
Maybe I was not quite clear here. What I mean is:
If jBoss includes code from Tomcat, the GPL license
of jBoss _requires_ that the Tomcat code _must_ be
put under GPL, but the APL license does not allow
that. Maybe it would be more correct to speak of
a license conflict here.
Would you agree to that?
Please note that section 0 of the GPL clearly states
that activities other than copying, distribution and
modification are outside the scope of the GPL.
So GPL cannot make restrictions on what a user does
when he does not copy, distribute or modify.
I do not think that loading Tomcat into a VM that
has jBoss loaded come under any of these three terms.
(One might argue that loading means copying since
a copy to volatile storage is done on most machines,
but copyright cases have shown that loading is _not_
considered copying in the copyright-legal sense of
the word. Otherwise every user of proprietary software
would be breaking the law all the time.)
> Yes they can - but they wil never be able to interact in the same VM.
I think they can. See above.
> >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?
>
> How does 1 stand on itself ?
This is the basis of what we discuss.
> 2 is not an issue as it is never violated.
It is still involved.
But I agree that it would be more correct to speak
of a license conflict here.
> 3 is violated all the way through jBoss with JAAS, JTA, (EJB ?), JMX, (JMS?)
Yes. I agree that we must get rid of the violations.
> The implications are that anyone who distributes jBoss is accepting a
> liability and can be sued for damages and for a creating a license
> inconsistent with what they distribute. Damages is hardly likely to be a
> problem as it is opensource dev and very few people are likely to be
> directly representing their company and thus no company would go after
> them. Inconsistent license is a big problem in many places (Australia and
> and some states in America are good examples of such places) and can cause
> a lot of pain.
IANAL and I don't know the law everywhere, but I would
be very surprised if someone could be sued for damages
with respect to copyright unless liability (culpa) is
shown. And sections 11 and 12 of the GPL makes it
_very_ hard to show liability.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
