Hello,
This topic is actually someting that is of concern to me as well,
specifically in my interest in jBOSS.
We are developing our packaged enterprise application server, and are very
keen on basing it around jBOSS/Tomcat. On top of this, we would add our own
libraries, and management related features, and package and resell it as a
product.
Again, like Vince, I am NOT A LAWYER! So please excuse any license-related
misconceptions I may have, and please help clarify them! :)
1) As I understand it, achieving what I hope to achieve above, Tomcat's
Apache license will work fine, as long as I state that I use Tomcat as a
base engine to my product (and provide the relevant disclaimers, links to
the Tomcat sources, etc etc).
2) What about GPL? How would I integrate jBOSS into this product? I
understand that any code enhancements I make to jBOSS would be GPL'd as
well - this is fine with me, as I am willing to contribute. I would even
assign a team to constant jBOSS and Tomcat development and contribution.
3) How would this affect my company's proprietary code and libraries, which
we hope to ship with the product? In addition, we will be writing GUI
installers, JavaBeans to the libraries (as plugins to IDE's), etc etc.
Other proprietary stuff further down the line may be resource pooling and
cacheing algorithms, transaction managers, other performance enhancements,
etc etc. How would this proprietary code be affected, and would it be
affected by incorporating jBOSS into the product?
Clarifications very much appreciated!
Cheers, all...
Manik Surtani
Chief Technology Officer
Silkroad Limited
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Donald
Sent: 31 October 2000 8:54 AM
To: jBoss Developer
Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Basic licensing questions
At 02:37 30/10/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Usual disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER.
>
>I've been following this rather painful discussion and have a few
questions:
>
>1.) The question of whether or not the virality of the GPL comes into play
>hinges on the definition of "platform". Is this correct?
basically - it really hinges on the definition of what is OS/compiler with
respect to java (see end of clause 3) but platform is an approximation to
it ;)
>2.) If 1.) is correct then who gets to decide what constitutes a platform?
the courts
>This seems particularly important because the GPL, itself, does not define
it.
>I mean the GNU lawyers can come up with whatever definition they like, but
if
>they come after me for violating the GPL can't I contest their definition?
you can but you are unlikely to win. Remember that they have literally
thousands and thousands of man hours developing the license to their own
needs and many of the hours are done by lawyer folk
>A
>license holder can't come in and arbitrarily change terms or definitions of
>terms to bolster their claim, can they?
what do you mean ?
> Since the GPL has never been
>challenged it all seems very hypothetical to claim that the GNU lawyers
have
>the only valid definition of what constitutes a Java platform.
There is a reason GPL has never been challenged (in court). It has been
challenged outside of court and even during preliminary court proceedings
and many big buisnesses with a lot of cash have gone against it but not one
time has GNU come out as wrong and not once have the offenders been game
enough to take the issue to court.
>It doesn't even
>seem to me that Sun has the right to unilaterally decide what constitutes
a
>Java plaform as it pertains to the GPL. While it may be true that the
courts
>can come up with some rather nonintuitive decisions, the courts are not
>completely divorced from all common sense considerations. In fact, they
apply
>common sense and consider practical implications to their decisions all of
the
>time. So, a common sense legal definition of platform does seem possible.
Right - but I bet for all intents and purposes their common sense
definition will equal the GNUs.
>3.) Because of all of the questions in 2.) the GPL seems very murky and
>ill defined in many ways. For that reason alone, it may be wise to choose
>another license, regardless of who is right on the law.
The GPL is very very clearly defined ;) - it is just that very few people
understand it.
>4.) Is the specific conflict between Tomcat and jBoss based on the the
BSD vs
>the GPL, or is it more generally just an issue of different licenses being
>mixed in one integrated package? Similarly, are there groups of licenses
that
>are generally compatible? For example, are the MPL and BSD generally
>compatible, while the BSD and GPL are not? In other words, is it the GPL
vs
>all other licenses, or just specific ones? Would the BSD license be
compatible
>with the Artistic License (I ask because there seems to be some
requirement for
>redistributing changes to source code in section 3 of the AL, though it
does
>seem to allow alternatives to doing so)?
APL is compatable with artistic, bsd and mozilla derivatives I believe thou
IANAL. GPL is not compatable with any other license except public domain
that I am aware of (and public domain is not really a license as such).
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
