Peter wrote:
>
> GCC is relatively self contained package that needs little
> extention and is a core asset. People did not need to integrate
> with it and thus were fine using it when it is GPLed.
This didn't stop NeXT (and now Apple) from integrating it with
ProjectBuilder.app, so obviously there are kinds of integration that
one can get away with. Specifically, exec() is allowed even in the
case of GPL. Note that ProjectBuilder.app is even something that
didn't ship with the original NeXTstep operating system, but was a
separate add-on.
> >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
>
> nope there is also integration with JMX/JMS/other standard
> extentions
There's nothing about Section 2, subsection d, paragraph 3 that
would prevent jboss from importing these packages, or loading
those classes by name. Is there some other clause you're thinking of?
> right - no "linking" or "glue" code allowed - but how do you
> implement an ejb server without linking against ejb.jar etc.
This seems to come out of thin air. You'll have to provide a reference.
I see nothing that prevents "linking" or "glue code". The only
clause that is remotely problematic is the one Rickard quoted, and
it says nothing about.
> Answer: you can't unless you reimplement ejb.jar.
This remains an unsupported claim. Can anyone support it with
relevant text, or is Peter chasing a Ghost here?
P.S. Regarding Dan's suggestion that we move this discussion
offline: I'll go whenever Marc's had enough.
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
