Hi Peter,
Summary:
You are WAY off base on this but here goes...
| -----Original Message-----
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Donald
| Sent: 29 October 2000 01:05
| To: Java Apache Framework
| Cc: jBoss Developer; Java ApacheFramework; TomcatDev List
| Subject: RE: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update
|
|
| >> I am sorry, I should actually provide some information.
| >>
| >> We use the GPL to protect the kernel. The virality of the GPL
| applies to
| >> the "derived work" or "modified work as a whole" of the kernel.
|
| ummm - hello ? - you should seek legal advice as this is NOT what the GPL
| saids. It was designed to force developers to GPL their work. See the
| philosophy pages at gnu if you think otherwise.
>From Section 2 of the GPL license:
<GNU license quote>
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections
as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of
the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your
rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise
the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works
based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with
the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage
or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this
License.
</GNU license quote>
It says if you for instance combine JBoss and Tomcat, the original and
separate jBoss and Tomcat retain their identities and licences. The combine
product though assumes the jBoss license. fair enough, it protects against
an abvious loophole that would let unscrupulous third parties invalidate the
jBoss license.
It does not require any license changes in either product however of you
have:
- an APL'ed Tomcat that is jBoss-aware (has integration code)
- a GPL/LPGL jBoss that is Tomcat-aware (has integration code)
and you make them both available via the same distribution or storage medium
e.g. a single-file download or a CD.
|
|
| >> Tomcat is not "derived work" of jboss, clearly, wouldn't you
| say? :). The
| >> "modified work as a whole" done in jboss to integrate the
| Tomcat jar is the
| >> MBean adapter (for JMX), the Tomcat Interceptors
| (classLoaders), and the
| >> J2EE deployer that we have developed. Those are GPL, as per the GPL
| derived
| >> work virality.
|
| umm - but you link against JMX/Tomcat/JMS/whatever and that is definetly
| not legal. They would have to be GPL unless they fall under clause 3.
| However clause 3 has been determined to only apply to libraries that come
| with a core java platform (ie j233-j3se-Java Personal Ed etc) and thus you
| are in clear violation of the GPL and the law.
|
| Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you believe otherwise. RMS will usually
| reply within 2-3 days after seeking legal advice (if necessary).
Section 3 talks about source code that needs to be supplied. It says:
<GNU license quote>
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all
the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source
code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
component itself accompanies the executable
</GNU license quote>
Yes we link against them but we are clearly not a derived work of theirs nor
are they a derived work of ours. In short we do not "contain" them and they
do not "contain" us. No "linking to XXX means XXX must be GPL/LGPL"
skeletons to exorcise in our GPL/LGPL cupboard here.
| >> The GPL applies to derived work in distribution. Our
| distributions are GPL
| >> kosher.
| >> Please don't be afraid of it, and feel free to discuss it...
|
| if it is available it is distribution. If I can get access to it
| then it is
| distribution. I can get access to CVS - thus that is distribution
| and rules
| apply.
Actually no. A distribution is distinct from the source in CVS which is
provided *solely* for the benefit of future possible contributors. That it
is publicly accessible is a consequence of the Open Source development
process not a conscious decision to offer jBoss distributions via CVS. We
have source and binary distribution archives for that.
Cheers!,
Micheal
