Thanks for helping clear this up more in my mind. Your responses as well as
the responses Aaron got from the horse's mouth, as it were, have really been a
bucket of cold water splashed in my face.
As I said in an earlier email the GPL, especially FSF's take on it, seems
completely incompatible with the goals of jBoss.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, you
wrote: > 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 ?
>
I was getting at the definition of a "platform". It was my understanding that
it is not actually defined as part of the license, but is used more as a term
that is somehow defined later. In looking at clause 3 of the GPL, defining
Java as a platform (OS, compiler, etc.), seems like something that is not
entirely well defined in the license itself, and would have to be clarified by
a separate document, statement, or whatever the proper legalese is for such
things.
> > 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.
>
Seems like a very good reason to keep clear of it if you ever think you might
combine your software with other software that might not be GPL'ed. Something
like jBoss, which almost demands integration with other software would be a
very good candidate.
> >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.
>
Ouch.
> >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.
>
Again, I am no lawyer, but it seems that there would be very good grounds to
challenge the GPL. I certainly wouldn't want to try, however.
> >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 |
> *------------------------------------------------------*
--
_______________________
Vincent Sheffer
Director of Operations
Telkel, Inc.
_______________________
