Peter wrote:
>
> No offense intended and sorry for not responding
> properly first time ;)
I understand your reaction now that you've explained it to me. Let's
start over. I actually found Rickard's post, by the way, so we should
be able to make progress.
<PREAMBLE TYPE="skipable">
In an ideal world, I'd like to see projects like this one treat
questions such as these in the same way that we would treat a problem
with a library we're using. Imagine that we're trying to use library
A, and we think we've hit a limitation. Do we immediately dump it and
switch to alternate library B? Or should we talk to the maintainer of
A, hoping that the facility we need is actually in there?
I'd like to see the latter happen first; Rickard and Aaron are
advocating the former:
Rickard wrote:
>
> I must agree with Aaron on this one: BSD is the only way we
> can do this legally.
I'd like to be convinced that that this is really the case. I
personally feel that the GNU licenses are important enough that
we should verify our concerns before we go stampeding off to the
land of demons and their pointy little forks. If there really is
a genuine problem with the LGPL, we should bring it to light,
and send feedback to Stallman. Who here thinks the man doesn't
deserve a well-written bug report?
And if it really is a problem, I guess there's always plan B.
</PREAMBLE>
Can we agree upon the following goal?
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal: find the specific clause(s) in the LGPL that |
| we believe to be problematic. Trim away all the |
| excess verbiage until only the problematic remains, |
| then send it to the proper authority for clarification. |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
To do this we need to things:
*) The problematic text,
*) A statement of what we would like to do with jboss
that we believe conflicts with the text.
I'll give a first draft here, quoting from the part mentioned
by Rickard.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
Section 2; subpart b, paragraph 3
>
> 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, whose permissions for other licensees
> extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless
> of who wrote it.
And, what we would like to be able to do is bundle jboss with
other products, such as tomcat without imposing rude constraints
on the license for the whole.
Is this it? Or is there more? If this is the only concern, then
I would like to point out the context of section 2, which is
"You may modify your copy...and distribute provided that..."
>From my hours of reading over this document, I'm convinced that
this clause DOES NOT APPLY to bundling jboss with other products,
provided that the person doing the bundling ONLY aggregates and
does NOT modify.
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
