Hi Rickard,
| -----Original Message-----
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rickard �berg
| Sent: 04 November 2000 07:53
| To: jBoss Developer
| Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] READ PLEASE (AUTHORS)
|
|
| Hi!
|
| Peter Donald wrote:
| > At 05:39 3/11/00 -0800, you wrote:
| > >Peter I recommend you go talk to Brian
| > >Behlendorf, he was one to recommend this, along with Stallman,
| Bruce Perens
| > >and the lawyers that go with it...
| >
| > well all I can say is you probably did not convey to them an acurate
| > representation of the situation. You solved the problem of whether other
| > libraries can link to jBoss but there still remains the problem
| of whether
| > jBoss can link to other non-GPL compatable libraries. As it stands an
| > unmodified LGPL can not - you choose to ignore this and link against a
| > variety of different libraries that are not GPL compatable.
|
| This sure is educating. :-) Well, after having read the LGPL license I
| must agree with Peter: section 2 is (as it was in GPL) a killer in terms
| of "larger work". It most certainly makes what we do illegal, at least
| AFAICT but OTOH IANAL. :-/ Here's the biggie in my mind "But when you
| distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on
| the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
| License,...". So, any redistribution of jBoss including other non-GPL
| non-LGPL libraries must be covered by the LGPL license. Which breaks the
| license for the other stuff we are using.
I don't think there is a problem at all. Let me explain, first the clause
again:
"But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
which is a work based on the Library, the distribution of the
whole must be on the terms of this License,..."
Now I understand this to mean that when (an LGPL'ed) jBoss is distributed as
part of a larger product where the larger product is essentially a product
that is based on (i.e. is an evolution of jBoss NOT just one that uses
jBoss) the jBoss library, the whole must be LGPL/GPL. That is consistent
with the "use it as you please but contribute improvements to the community"
ethos of GPL/LPGL.
Supplied "on the same CD" doesn't not necessarily mean part of the same
distribution. We define what a distribution is, we can produce a jBoss
distribution and a *separate* "Tomcat distribution" (or other such
distributions) that is pre-configured to integrate with the jBoss distro if
it finds it. This separate distributions can be supplied on the same CD to
save costs.
Hell, I get products from multiple, unrelated suppliers on my MS Development
tools CDs sometimes!
| I must agree with Aaron on this one: BSD is the only way we can do this
| legally.
I don't believe any license that removes the fundamental "you are free to
use this as you please but you must contribute your changes/improvements to
the community that gave you this in the first place" is worth considering.
BSD is unfortunately, one such licence.
|
| regards,
| Rickard
Cheers!,
Micheal
