f Of Brian
> Wallis
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 7:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JBoss Licencing.
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:21 pm, Juha Lindfors wrote:
> > Subclasses would fall under LGPL, as far as I can tell, if they're
> >
essage-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>> Behalf Of Bill Burke
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:42 AM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss Licencing.
>>>
>>>
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:21 pm, Juha Lindfors wrote:
> Subclasses would fall under LGPL, as far as I can tell, if they're
> distributed publically.
What about "implements EntityBean" etc. Surely all my beans are not now LGPL.
Or "extends ServiceMBeanSupport" so my mbeans are now LGPL.
I hope not.
st 20, 2003 11:42 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss Licencing.
> >
> >
> > IANAL. Plugins are ok I think. But any modified JBoss
> > source code must be
> > licensed under LGPL and become itself, open source.
> >
> &g
; [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Bill Burke
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss Licencing.
>
>
> IANAL. Plugins are ok I think. But any modified JBoss
> source code must be
> licensed under
IANAL. Plugins are ok I think. But any modified JBoss source code must be
licensed under LGPL and become itself, open source.
Bill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Venkatesh V
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 3:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL P
