geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Fran├žois LETELLIER (ObjectWeb)" <>
Subject Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Date Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:22:36 GMT
Hi all,

well it's up to each organization to define its own policy. AFAIK, there 
are discussions between ASF and ObjectWeb to find ways of coping with 
license discrepancies because it's worth for technical reasons. Apparently, 
people are not parochial, and both sides are ready to envision the 
necessary steps. The idea is not to throw the baby away with the bath water 
but instead to seize the opportunity of cooperation - for JOnAS is already 
a J2EE-grade (though not "certified") app server and the projects teams 
could bring some expertise.

James' point is good advocacy for the APL. However the question here is not 
a question of license, but a question of policy. It'd be a choice for JOnAS 
teams to change license (keeping in mind that all copyright holders would 
have to agree), just as much as it'd be a choice for Geronimo teams to take 
on then LGPL - or any other OSL.

In my understanding, James argues that the LGPL drawback is its viral 
aspect - which contaminates other pieces of software. However, sticking to 
the APL-or-nothing standpoint is just as viral, since it requires that all 
other pieces of software, for being taken aboard, be under the same license 
flavor. It's a conceptual shift from viral license to viral policy ;-) 
Hence the need for case by case assessments and common thinking on possible 


- Francois.

At 17:08 28/08/2003 +0100, James Strachan wrote:

>Just to be clear in case any ObjectWeb folks don't know. Apache software 
>cannot import any *GPL code since its a viral licence. So on a project 
>like Apache Geronimo we cannot import any ObjectWeb code - hence we can't 
>use ASM.
>However if Geronimo links to the JMS API (which we have an ASF/BSD version 
>of it) then a user could deploy JORAM inside Geronimo. Though due to the 
>LGPL licence Apache couldn't bundle JORAM inside it and host it at Apache 
>- though others could if they wished. e.g. ObjectWeb could host a 
>deployment of Geronimo with LGPL stuff inside it.
>If any ObjectWeb projects were available under a BSD style licence then 
>Apache projects could happily use them directly & import the code (e.g. ASM).
>On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 01:36  pm, Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
>>is it up to a particular ObjectWeb software project team to
>>decide whether they want to re-release their software under
>>a new or dual license or will the ObjectWeb group work on
>>a strategy on how it would be possible to 'enabling its (ASF's)
>>projects to use some OW code'?
>>i for instance am interested in the JORAM JMS server [1] because
>>that project implements the JMS v1.1 API and because it now ships
>>with that nifty kJORAM J2ME library which enables people not to rely
>>on the commercial iBuss//Mobile software [2].
>>just out of curiosity - why was the JORAM project moved from
>>a CPL license to LGPL?
>>daniel s. haischt
>>Jeff Mesnil wrote:
>>>(given the subject, I crosspost to ObjectWeb architecture mailing list)
>>>Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
>>>>James Strachan wrote:
>>>>>Just to be clear - we cannot touch any LGPL code at Apache so that 
>>>>>rules out ASM for now.
>>>>yes, that was my distinct understanding!
>>>>i just wanted to explain that i do not think that the
>>>>ObjectWeb group will release ASM under a BSD kinda
>>>There have been some talks within ObjectWeb community to see
>>>how we (the OW community) can collaborate more with Apache and Geronimo.
>>>License is one of the main issues what we have to solve but I do believe
>>>that we can find a good solution for both Apache and ObjectWeb.
>>>After all, lots of OW projects already use some Apache code.
>>>Why not thank Apache back by enabling its projects to use some OW code?
>>>ObjectWeb and Apache have some complementary projects and I personally
>>>think that both community can benefit from better cooperation.
>>>ASM would be a good start.
>>>So the licensing issue is open but OW community is carefully
>>>considering it.

View raw message