openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Linskey <plins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: License of enhanced or transformed code
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:59:31 GMT
I'm also not a lawyer.

If you are still concerned about this, you might want to consider  
deploy-time enhancement, either via deployment into a Java EE  
container or with the -javaagent flag. This would prevent the enhanced  
code from ever being written to disk, and I think that licensing  
typically triggers on "distribution". When using the deploy-time  
enhancement options, you would never be distributing enhanced code.

HTH,

-Patrick

On Apr 28, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

>
> On Apr 28, 2008, at 6:16 AM, rlv j wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't your software already combined with openjpa, irrespective of  
>>> the
>>> enhancement?
>>
>> I believe that 'my software' can be compiled to .class files while  
>> being
>> clearly not a derivative work because they are separable and only use
>> OpenJPA by linking.
>>
>> Apache License 2 {
>> Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable  
>> from, or
>> merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and  
>> Derivative
>> Works thereof. }
>
> Of course.
>
>>
>>
>> However, after OpenJPA alters the code of 'my software', is the  
>> result under
>> Apache License?
>
> I see.  You're wondering if somehow your code is "forced" to be  
> under the AL because of this?
>
> First, I'm not a lawyer, I'm speaking as an individual, and the  
> following shouldn't be in any way interpreted to be the POV of the  
> ASF, or this PMC.
>
> I would say the answer is no.
>
> First, I can't imagine that the modifications made to your class  
> file can be construed as a derivative work of OpenJPA, any more than  
> an optimizing compiler creates a derivative work of itself when it  
> produces object code from your source - it's just a mechanical  
> transformation of your data.
>
> Second, such a thing is clearly in conflict with the philosophy  
> behind the Apache License - there's no interest in compelling anyone  
> to put their code under the Apache License unless they make the  
> decision to do so.  While I don't think it's anywhere possible here,  
> in the unlikely event there was a situation where such a thing was  
> uncertain, I'm sure the PMC or ASF would provide a statement of  
> intent to clarify.  Again, I don't think thats necessary here.
>
> geir
>
>>
>> -- 
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-of-enhanced-or-transformed-code-tp16934610p16936016.html
>> Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>

-- 
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907





Mime
View raw message